作　　者： ;

机构地区： 中山大学人文科学学院逻辑与认知研究所

出　　处： 《湖南科技大学学报（社会科学版）》 2006年第1期41-46,共6页

摘　　要： 理性是人类交往追求的理想境界,批判性思维是人们通往理性的桥梁,论证则是实现批判性思维的重要途径。与论证分析和评价紧密相关的是“符号三维度”,即:语形维度、语义维度和语用维度。在《工具论》和《修辞学》中,亚里士多德便是从这三个维度来讨论论证分析与评价的。遗憾的是,随着以亚氏三段论为基础的演绎逻辑得到进一步发展和完善,特别是继弗雷格之后数理逻辑的发展,基于语形和语义的论证评价模型成为经典逻辑发展方向,相应地,论证评价的语用维度似乎被人们忽略了,论证往往被看作是无目的性、静态性、零主体性(至多是一种独白式的)和缺乏背景敏感性的。而日常生活中的论证却具有目的性、动态性、主体性(特别是多主体性的)、背景敏感性等特征。换句话说,论证有一个语用维度,且离开这个维度所进行的论证评价显然是不充分的。北美的非形式逻辑、荷兰的语用论辩术以及法国的激进论辩主义均从语用维度出发试图给出相应的论证评价模型。 We always yearn towards and aspire after rationality or reasonableness by all means. And critical thinking bridges between human being and rationality. To reach rationality, one must learn how to analyze, evaluate and present an argument. Relevant to the characterization of an argument is the well - known tri - partition of semiotics into syntax, semantics and pragmatics. In Organon and Rhetoric, Aristotle discussed how to evaluate an argument based on the three dimensions. It is a pity that the role of pragmatics in assessing argument should appear to be faded from our memory after deductive logic based on Aristotle＇s syllogism had increasingly matured, especially after Frege mathematic logic developed and completed in the twentieth century so that the model based on syntax and semantics become the mainstream one of evaluating argument up- to- date. However, an argument is dynamic, context- semitive, multi- agent and goal - oriented in everyday life. In other words, we must consider the pragmatic dimension and if we overlook it this evaluation is not sufficient when evaluating an argument based on natural language. In this paper we will try to discuss the pragma - dialectic theory developed by Frans van Eemeren, at al from a perspective of critical thinking.

关 键 词： 理性 批判性思维 论证 数理逻辑 语用论辩术

领　　域： [哲学宗教]