Review of M. Spranzi, The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric: The Aristotelian tradition

Abstract

In The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric, Spranzi (2011) explores the relation between the art of dialectic and the philosophical search for principles of methods of inquiry. By providing a reconstruction of the tradition of Aristotelian dialectic, she aims at elucidating the ‘‘epistemic significance’’ (p. 1) of dialectic. The reconstruction addresses a limited number of authors, all of which are chosen for their relevance in answering the question as to how the dialectical method may be instrumental in acquiring knowledge. In the first two chapters of the book Spranzi discusses the seminal passages in Aristotle’s Topica, Sophistici elenchi and Rhetorica, as well as the contributions of Cicero, Boethius and several medieval authors. She then discusses the developments in the tradition of dialectic that took place in the Renaissance, devoting three separate chapters to the contributions of Agricola, Nifo, and Sigonio respectively. In the final chapter, she describes the relationship between modern argumentation theory and the Aristotelian tradition of dialectic. Among the authors discussed are Toulmin, Perelman and OlbrechtsTyteca, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Walton, and Freeman. As to the methodology of her reconstruction of the tradition of dialectic, Spranzi indicates that she focuses on ‘‘dialectica docens’’ rather than ‘‘dialectica utens’’ (p. 3). This means that she reconstructs only those passages in which the authors explicitly reflect on the relationship between dialectic and the advancement of knowledge and stays away from passages in which the authors explain the technicalities of the dialectical discussion procedure. The actual reconstruction of the tradition of dialectic starts in chapter 1, Aristotle and the art of dialectic. In line with the central aim of her research, Spranzi highlights those passages in the works of Aristotle in which he explicitly reflects on the connection between the art of debate and the pursuance of knowledge. Having explained the central concepts of Aristotle’s Topica, she distinguishes between