Problems of Argumentation in Medieval Armenian Philosophy

Abstract

None of the medieval Armenian thinkers left a complete piece on argumentation theory. However, argumentation problems and the practical realization of requirements of the theory of argumentation were enormous part of Armenian philosophers’ works. They discussed argumentation problems mostly from object-language rather than meta-language prospective. This research focuses on the works of three mediaeval thinkers: Yeznik Koghbacy (IV-V), David Anhaght (The Invincible, V), Grigor Tatevatsi (XIV-XV). In their theoretical heritage the examination of argumentation issues and coverage can be regarded as the most significant stages of history of Armenian argumentation theories, the interpretation of which first of all aims to accomplish the following problems:
 
 Present the argumentation doctrines of each chosen philosopher as a complete idea of the theory of argumentation.
 Complete the critical analysis of the theoretical heritage of the examinee philosophers.
 Clarify the most important stages of history of Armenian argumentation doctrines.
 Thereby increase the possibility of including history of Armenian argumentation theories in universal history.
 
 The history of each theory can be perceived and properly appreciated from the perspective of that theory’s modern level of development. Considering that fact this research reconstructs the models of syntax and semantics of the language of argumentation.