Argumentation and Reasoned Action

Studies in Logic

63 Argumentation and Reasoned Action

Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 Volume II

This is Volume II of the proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation: Argumentation and Reasoned Action, held at the Argumentation Lab in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2015. The European Conference on Argumentation (ECA) is a new pan-European initiative aiming to consolidate and advance various streaks of research into argumentation and reasoning: philosophy, communication, linguistics, discourse analysis, computer science, psychology, cognitive studies, legal theory, etc. The proceedings comprise what we think is the most complete statement of the state of the art of argumentation studies today across these disciplines. From ancient rhetoric to Artificial Intelligence, and from analytic philosophy to detailed empirical research, the contributors examine argumentation theory and practice with a special focus on argumentation aimed at reasoned action. It’s gratifying to have all this research collected in one source and realise the breadth and depth of the lively debates in argumentation studies.

Logic and Argumentation

63

Studies in Logic

Argumentation and Reasoned Action Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 Volume II

Editors

Dima Mohammed Marcin Lewinski

Editors


Studies in Logic Volume 63


Volume 52 Inconsistency Robustness Carl Hewitt and John Woods, eds. Volume 53 Aristotle’s Earlier Logic John Woods Volume 54 Proof Theory of N4-related Paraconsistent Logics Norihiro Kamide and Heinrich Wansing Volume 55 All about Proofs, Proofs for All Bruno Woltzenlogel Paleo and David Delahaye, eds Volume 56 Dualities for Structures of Applied Logics Ewa Orłowska, Anna Maria Radzikowska and Ingrid Rewitzky Volume 57 Proof-theoretic Semantics Nissim Francez Volume 58 Handbook of Mathematical Fuzzy Logic, Volume 3 Petr Cintula, Petr Hajek and Carles Noguera, eds. Volume 59 The Psychology of Argument. Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion Fabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli and Silvia Felletti, eds Volume 60 Absract Algebraic Logic. An Introductory Textbook Josep Maria Font Volume 61 Philosophical Applications of Modal Logic Lloyd Humberstone Volume 62 st Argumentation and Reasoned Action. Proceedings of the 1 European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015. Volume I Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, eds Volume 63 st Argumentation and Reasoned Action. Proceedings of the 1 European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015. Volume II Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, eds

Studies in Logic Series Editor Dov Gabbay

[email protected]

© Individual author and College Publications 2016 All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-84890-212-1 College Publications Scientific Director: Dov Gabbay Managing Director: Jane Spurr http://www.collegepublications.co.uk

Original cover design by Orchid Creative www.orchidcreative.co.uk Printed by Lightning Source, Milton Keynes, UK

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior permission, in writing, from the publisher.

Table of contents Thematic Panels: Panel I: Argumentation in Institutionalized Contexts I.1. Prototypical argumentative patterns in the justification of judicial decisions: A pragma-dialectical perspective By Eveline T. Feteris I.2. Strategic maneuvering in administrative judicial decisions: Groundwork for argumentative patterns By H. José Plug I.3. Anticipating critical questions to pragmatic argumentation in over-the-counter medicine advertisements By Francisca Snoeck Henkemans I.4. Criteria for deciding what is the ‘best’ scientific explanation By Jean H.M. Wagemans Panel II: Visual arguments and beyond II.1. Kinds of visual argument By Ian J. Dove II.2. Visual argument: Content, commensurability, and cogency By David Godden II.3. The semantics of multimodal arguing and the fallacy of independent meaning By Leo Groarke Panel III: Argumentation, politics and controversy in Mexico III.1. What personality traits should a governor have? By Jose Maria Infante Bonfiglio and Maria Eugenia Flores Treviño

v

1 3 15 29 43 55 57 69 83 97 99

vi

III.2. Refusal argumentative strategies in a telephone interview: The mayor in Monterrey, Mexico, hands over the keys of the city to Christ By Maria Eugenia Flores Treviño and Armando González Salinas III.3. Eristic argumentation in CEU-rectory debate By Julieta Haidar Regular Papers: 1. Understanding the competence involved in constructing argumentative contexts By Mark Aakhus 2. Using abstract dialectical frameworks to argue about legal cases By Latifa Al-Abdulkarim, Katie Atkinson and Trevor BenchCapon 3. Non-verbal arguments in War Requiem By J. Jesús Alcolea-Banegas 4. Bounded agents and epistemic vigilance By J. Francisco Álvarez 5. Impassioning reason: On the role of habit in argumentation By Michael J. Ardoline 6. Computational modelling of practical reasoning using transition diagrams By Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon and Latifa AlAbdulkarim 7. Uncertainty and fuzziness from natural language to argumentation models By Pietro Baroni, Massimiliano Giacomin and Beishui Liao 8. From beliefs to truth via argumentation: Intentionality, multi-agent systems and community agreement By André Bazzoni

117 137 153 163 181 195 205 215 227 241

9. Criteria for the reconstruction and analysis of doctors’ argumentation in the context of chronic care By Sarah Bigi and Nanon Labrie 10. Argument and context By John Biro and Harvey Siegel 11. Argument from analogy and its interpretation: A problem of evaluation By Angelina Bobrova 12. Analytical sociology, argumentation and rhetoric: Large scale social phenomena significantly influenced by apparently innocuous rhetorical devices By Alban Bouvier 13. Enquiring responsibly in context: Role relativity and the intellectual virtues By Tracy Bowell and Justine Kingsbury 14. Automatically identifying transitions between locutions in dialogue By Katarzyna Budzynska et al. 15. Limitations of the sympathy-based model of ethical deliberation: The case of Adam Smith and Richard Mervyn Hare By Adam Cebula 16. Shallow techniques for argument mining By Jérémie Clos, Nirmalie Wiratunga, Stewart Massie and Guillaume Cabanac 17. Reasonable agents and reasonable arguers: Rationalization, justification, and argumentation By Daniel H. Cohen 18. Arguments and decisions in contexts of uncertainty By Vasco Correia

vii 251 267 281 291 301 311 329 341 357 367

viii

19. Instrumental rationality as a component of epistemic vigilance in a persuasion dialogue By Kamila Debowska-Kozlowska 20. Strategic maneuvering to diminish political responsibility in a press conference By Yeliz Demir and Kerem Yazici 21. Fallacy as vice and/or incontinence in decision-making By Iovan Drehe 22. Arguments for an informational layer in theories of argumentation By Sjur Kristoffer Dyrkolbotn 23. Familiars: Culture, Grice and super-duper maxims By Michael A. Gilbert 24. What (the hell) is virtue argumentation? By G.C. Goddu 25. The pragmatic force of making reasons apparent By Jean Goodwin and Beth Innocenti 26. Getting involved in an argumentation in class as a pragmatic move: Social conditions and affordances By Sara Greco, Teuta Mehmeti and Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont 27. Analysing arguments in decision making discourse By Kira Gudkova 28. Automatic exploration of argument and ideology in political texts By Graeme Hirst and Vanessa Wei Feng 29. Persuasion, authority, and the (common law) foundations of transnational legal decision-making By Graham Hudson 30. Pragmatic argumentation in the law-making process By Constanza Ihnen Jory

379 393 407 417 431 439 449 463 479 493 505 519

31. A computational study of the vaccination controversy By Sally Jackson and Natalie Lambert 32. Verbal swindles, frauds, and other forms of deceptive manipulation in the bush administration case for invading Iraq: How to exploit pragmatic principles of communication so as not to lie By Scott Jacobs 33. Applying inference anchoring theory for argumentative structure recognition in the context of debate By Mathilde Janier and Olena Yaskorska 34. Strategic maneuvering with that says it all and that says everything By Henrike Jansen 35. Overcoming obstacles to the use of peer grading in the assessment of written arguments By David Kary 36. Types of reasoning in argumentation By Iryna Khomenko 37. Prosodic features in the analysis of multimodal argumentation By Gabrijela Kišiček 38. Adjudication and justification: To what extent should the excluded be included in the judge’s decision? By Bart van Klink 39. "Doctor, I disagree!” Development and initial validation of a scale to measure patients’ argumentativeness in medical consultation By Nanon Labrie, Annegret Hannawa and Peter Schulz 40. Temporality in rhetorical argumentation By Ilon Lauer 41. Is reasoning universal? Perspectives from India By Keith Lloyd

ix 539 553

569 587 601 617 629 643 657 671 683

x

42. The argumentation of H.L.A. Hart on legal opositivism: The descriptivist stance and its categories By António Marques 43. Arguing in the healthcare: On the discourse of web-based communication to patients By Davide Mazzi 44. Phronesis and fallacies By Timothy Mosteller 45. An agentive response to the incompleteness problem for the virtue argumentation theory By Douglas Niño and Danny Marrero 46. Narrativity, narrative arguments and practical argumentation By Paula Olmos 47. Maneuvering strategically by means of an allegorical beast fable in political communication By Ahmed Omar 48. Algorithms in argumentation: Implications for reasoned decision making By Marcus Paroske and Ron von Burg 49. Whose function? Which normativity? By Sune H. Pedersen 50. An annotated corpus of argumentative microtexts By Andreas Peldszus and Manfred Stede 51. Approximate syllogism as argumentative expression for knowledge representation and reasoning with generalized Bayes' theorem By M. Pereira-Fariña and A. Bugarín 52. Comparing words to debate about drinking water: Textometrics for argumentation studies By Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund and Gerald Peter Niccolai

695 705 719 733 743 755 769 781 801 817 831

53. The philosophical and literary argumentation methods in the ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems By Hany Rashwan 54. Evaluation of pro and contra argumentation By Magne Reitan 55. An exploration of the relatedness problem between arguments: Combining the generative lexicon with lexical inference By Patrick Saint-Dizier 56. Argument compound mining in technical texts: Linguistic structures, implementation and annotation schemas By Patrick Saint-Dizier and Juyen Kang 57. When subjectivity arises in a Swiss criminal court: How intensifiers can work as pragmatic markers in argumentative discourse By Camillia Salas and Thierry Raeber 58. Rustic scepticism as argumentation By Vitor Hirschbruch Schvartz 59. Multimodal argumentation in a climate protection initiative on Austrian television By Andrea Sabine Sedlaczek 60. Reasoning types and diagramming method By Marcin Selinger 61. On the ends of argumentation By Paul L. Simard Smith 62. A formal model of erotetic reasoning in solving somewhat ill-defined problems By Mariusz Urbański, Natalia Żyluk, Katarzyna Paluszkiewicz and Joanna Urbańska 63. Dissociating between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: Recognizing and interpreting positions in climate change controversies By Mehmet Ali Uzelgun and Paula Castro

xi 849 865 879 895 907 921 933 947 961 973 985

xii

64. “Vaccines don’t make your baby autistic”: Arguing in favour of vaccines in institutional healthcare communication By Alessandra Vicentini and Kim Grego 65. Argumentation and moral education By Ana Maríavicuña Navarro 66. Mark my words: Vindicating moral and legal arguments By Sheldon Wein 67. Combinatorial dialogue games in strategic argumentation By Simon Wells 68. Lost in argumentation? China’s arguments in international human rights treaty bodies By Jingjing Wu 69. Are inferences concerning action formal or material? An inferentialist perspective By Tomasz Zarębski 70. Is dialogue the most appropriate model for argumentation? By David Zarefsky 71. Meta-reasoning in making moral decisions under normative uncertainty By Tomasz Żuradzki

999 1021 1033 1045 1055 1071 1081 1093

53 The Philosophical and Literary Argumentation Methods in the Ancient Egyptian Rhetorical Systems HANY RASHWAN Centre for Cultural, Literary and Postcolonial Studies / School of Oriental and African Studies / University of London, UK [email protected] The ancient Egyptian and the Greco-Roman cultures have two distinct perspectives for viewing language and its rhetorical system, as a result, differing in structuring their persuasive messages. The paper investigates the possibility of offering closer analytical readings of ancient Egyptian Argumentation methods, by shedding new insights into their persuasive aesthetic richness, and confirms the persuasive structural integrity of the ancient Egyptian language. KEYWORDS: ancient Egyptian Argumentation, Comparative Rhetoric, Eurocentric, Literary rhetoric, non-Western logic.

1. INTRODUCTION The connections between argumentation and rhetoric have often been extremely close in the Western and non-Western traditions. Modern scholars have to first understand the more dominant rhetorical system in order to better understand the nature of the argumentation. The best approach to achieve this objective can be provided under the umbrella of an emerging discipline called 'Comparative Rhetoric'1. It is a new discipline that deals with the study of rhetoric across different cultural The real beginning of this young discipline goes back to 1966 when the English professor Robert Kaplan offered an article that examines how the non-Western students in American universities write their arguments in English and how that may reflect the rhetorical characteristics of their own native languages. His essay thus pioneered an area of study now called "Contrastive Rhetoric". Afterwards, it has been developed to establish the discipline of "Comparative Rhetoric". (LuMing, 2003) 1

849 D.Mohammed & M. Lewiński (eds.)(2016). Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon, 2015. Vol.II, 849-863. London: College Publications.

Hany Rashwan traditions, and it is a "potentially rich, extremely challenging, and thus, largely untouched area of study." (Garrett, 1998, p. 431) There are few studies about reconstructing the ancient Egyptian Rhetoric (henceforth AER) but they were hampered at the start by number of preconceptions that have long been embedded in the discourse as scientific or empirical facts. Most such preconceptions centered around a primary definition of AER as part of a public oral persuasive practice; behind this concept lies the hegemonic tradition of speeches in the assemblies and Senates of the ancient Greek and Roman world. This Eurocentric methodology still surrounds all the writings about non-Western rhetorical systems. The sinologist Marry Garrett criticized this hegemonic approach reviewing one of the fundamental books of the field (George Kennedy, 1998) saying: Kennedy gives pride of place to the terminology and theories of Western rhetoric, not just as a heuristically convenient starting point, but also as the limit of his inquiry. From Kennedy's perspective, the project is one of "test[ing] the applicability of Western rhetorical concepts outside the West (p. 5). Specifically, to what extent can the rhetorical terminology of the Greco-Roman tradition describe the practices of other traditions?" (Garrett, 1998, p. 431)

The main expected result of such Eurocentric methodology is to turn all the 'other' rhetorical systems into an ugly replica of the 'perfect' Greco–Roman system. An example of such Eurocentric views is James Murphy‘s statement: "There is no evidence of an interest in rhetoric in the ancient civilization of Babylon or Egypt, for instance neither Africa nor Asia to this day produced a rhetoric." (Murphy, 1981, p. 3) Another is Michael Fox‘s speculation about the whole of the non-Western societies and their illogical communication systems: "Non-Western rhetoric doesn‘t teach how to formulate arguments because it is not argumentation but rather the ethical stance of the speakers that will maintain harmony in the social order, and that is the ultimate goal of Egyptian rhetoric." (Fox, 1983, p. 21) George Kennedy supported Fox‘s claim saying that he did not find in the ancient Egyptian literature "any good examples of argument from probability. Neither in Egypt nor elsewhere outside classical Greece are full syllogisms stated, but enthymemes… are ubiquitous." (Kennedy, 1998, p. 183) Apparently, there is little interest from Western 'Comparative Rhetoric' specialists in studying the 'other‘s' rhetorical system by using that system‘s own concepts, without any reliance on the Eurocentric application used in their own methodology. If we begin our discussion by adopting the Greek concepts and definitions, we lose a genuine ability to understand the other‘s systems, as they have been situated and 850

The ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems embedded according to their own culture and language by their own intellectual figures. Using Eurocentric classic typology with its terms and concepts, as a methodology to treat non-Western rhetoric, is something the 'dead' ancient Egyptian and even the alive Arabic languages suffer from. The classic traditions were developed within the Greco-Roman world to express linguistic and literary minutiae that related only to the Greek and Latin world. The European linguistic schools have the full right to use them for studying all the minutiae of their kindred languages. However, the situation should be different when we deal with a non-Western language. Imposing the Western terms and concepts obscures the character of the studied language, provides problematic answers, implies that there is nothing more to be said and gets in the way of developing a new closer approach to better understand these ancient non-Western cultures. Rhetoric, derived from Greek philosophy, is traditionally conceptualized as a method of persuasion through logical/rational arguments. This Eurocentric perspective has privileged, at the expense of other traditions of orality and orator, a narrow understanding of the ways by which cultures communicate meaning and traditions through the spoken word. (Young, 2004, p. 81)

A recent study offered insightful thoughts about the two rhetorical systems that always existed alongside each other in every culture: Philosophical and Literary Rhetoric. Philosophical Rhetoric deals with argumentation and regulation of public oral speech and is strongly represented in the Greek rhetorical system that is based on Plato and Aristotle‘s theories. Literary Rhetoric deals with the conveying of meaning in the best literary verbal forms or the study of aesthetic effectiveness and is strongly represented in the Arabic system (Balāgha) which mainly arose from the text of the Quran, whose literary inimitability pushed the Grammarians very early on (9th-10th century) to enumerate, define, exemplify and classify the literary and grammatical peculiarities of the Revelation2. "The two rhetorical systems can be distinguished by their goals, methods, programs and sources." Fortunately, the two systems existed in Arabic traditions. The argumentation one is more related to the science of Arabic Khitābah which literally means public oral speech. This Arabic discipline has been heavily influenced by Greek-Roman rhetoric through Aristotle's translations and has been developed later by the Arabic speech practitioners, under what has been called ‫علن الكالم‬- Science of Speech. This discipline is still studied too little in the West. (Halldén, 2005, p. 20) 2

851

Hany Rashwan (Woerther, 2009, p. 10) There is no comprehensive study yet that tries to understand how the two rhetorical systems influence each other in order to form the persuasive arguments for their native receivers, especially in the non-Western cultures. Furthermore, the two offered rhetorical systems in this monograph reflect also two mental faculties of producing arguments: one is of oral nature and the other is of written nature. In writing the author has time to give full concentration to moulding a succession of related ideas into a more complex, coherent and integrated unity, while the oral conversation could be more fragmented in nature and the way that it establishes its cohesion is different, since it can rely more on nonverbal communication tools, such as modulations of the voice, body and facial gestures and the direct reactions of the receiver, in addition to depending on a shared situation between the speaker and the addressee. Cohesion in writing is generally attributed to the effective way that the author uses his linguistic-literary background, to express the intended message to the reader: This greater complexity is generally attributed to two distinctive characteristics of writing: the lack of strict timing constraints during the production and the need to establish the cohesion strictly through the lexical-syntactic channel." (AlAnsary, 2001, p. 150)

In general writing, as a human activity in comparison with speech, is claimed to be more structurally complex and elaborate since it is more deliberately organized and planned than speech. These two factors can be related to the ancient Egyptian materials of writing, since writing on expensive materials such as Papyrus or a hard stone was not an easy process and requires more detailed attention to the way that the author carefully constructs his intended message. Therefore, the literaryrhetorical critics should recognize the different linguistic characterizations of oral and written arguments, as the two modes may require different analytic natures. Consequently, the scholars of non-Western argumentation should be aware that: in the strong literary rhetoric societies, such as ancient Near Eastern cultures, the interrelationships between argumentation and the literary devices used to express the intended persuasive message are strong enough to bury the main logical argument. All the arguments produced in such cultures are heavily influenced by the literary perfection of the way in which they are expressed. The author uses the highest literary mechanism to deliver his argument, and without this literary cover it would not be accepted or considered effective for the native readers. This well-knit relation can be 852

The ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems at once obvious but could be unclear to the modern scholars in the translation realm. The original poetic form of the argument's language is crucial to better understand the argument nature and its own impact. Scholars are thus encouraged to avoid the divorce between poetic form and eloquent content, which can result from just depending on a translation. This paper offers two examples to illustrate each rhetorical system3. The first is a song that is narrated by a harp singer, using a voice of dead king, in order to advise the alive receivers to enjoy the earthly life and stop sacrificing it for afterlife expectations. The author carefully chooses rational arguments that ask the mind's eye to see their truth or to challenge their claimed accuracy logically. In this song the logical-rational rhetorical system will overcome the literary metaphorical one, but still the author uses high literary language. 2. SONG OF THE HARPER: This song was found written on a papyrus that belongs to the Ramsesside period (1295-1070 B.C)4. The writer or the copier of the song stated in the introduction, which is unusual, that the song originally existed on the walls of a royal tomb-complex belonging to one of the unidentified dead kings named Intwf, who could be one of the kings of that name from the 11th dynasty (ca2134-2061 B.C.) or 17th dynasty (ca1585-1560 B.C.). Hsw nty m Hwt (intwf) mAa xrw nty m bAH pA Hsyw m bnt The song that is in the tomb of (King Intwf) the justified which is located in front of the singer with harp. 1. wAD pw wr pn nfr SAw nfr HDy A lucky one is this great person, with good fate and good ending.

For ease of reference, I have divided the texts into separated full sentences semantically. The offered reading here based on my translation and without heavy philological treatments, giving the nature of the focus of the article and the words limitation. 4 The paper follows the Hieroglyphic transcription of Michael Fox, 1985, pp. 378-80. 3

853

Hany Rashwan The writer here stresses two happy encounters that this great person could achieve by being wr-rich: the happy earthly life and wealthy ending which is supposed to pave the way for a joyful afterlife too. 2. Xt z Hr sbit ktyw Hr mn Dr rk imyw-HAt The human body is always perished but others remain from the time of the early ancestors. The writer here forces the receivers to compare the status of people whose bodies are already vanished, because they could not afford to have excellent equipment to preserve their bodies for the afterlife, with that of people who have access to super mummification and preservation process which enables their bodies to fight time and survive for thousands of years. 3. nTrw xprw Xr-HAt.i Htpw m mrw.sn The Deifieds (lit. gods) who came into being before me are resting peacefully in their pyramid-tombs. 4. saHw Axw m mitt qrsw m mrwt.sn The glorified nobles are buried as well in their pyramid-tombs. 5. qd Hwwt nn wn swt.sn ptr irw im.sn The tomb builders, their burial-places do not exist anymore and look what happened in them. The writer here compares two opposite social levels, mainly regarding the survival of their graves and how these religious teachings were mainly designed to serve those lucky nTrw-holy kings and saHw Axw the glorious nobles - who could dedicate many poor workers to qd Hwwt build their huge tombs. In a sarcastic tone, the writer forces the imagination of his receivers to see by their own eyes the two examples, to demonstrate the irony that these religious teachings created, wondering about the destiny of those poor workers after their simple unplanned graves (lit. places) have been completely destroyed. The big irony here is that those poor people had devoted all their earthly life to secure the afterlife paradise for other “glorified” rich people. The question raised here is: Are they still eligible to meet the condition of afterlife paradise, in comparison with those rich who used them to 854

The ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems secure their own happy destiny after their death, or because of their predestined poverty will they have to face another hard situation during their afterlife? The writer challenges the accuracy of these religious teachings that ask all the people to prepare strong decorated tombs to secure the afterlife paradise, and thus he questions the reality of the afterlife existence. 6. iw sDm.n.i mdt ii-m-Htp Hna Hr-ddf sDd.ti m sDdwt.sn r-sy I have heard the speeches of Imhotep and Hordedef that have been narrated from all their narrations. The author shows his full familiarity with these famous Old Kingdom teachings, thereby inducing the receivers to think well of his personal knowledge and thus to accept more readily what he has to say afterwards. In other words, the speaker thus extols his own virtue and at the same time casts doubt on his opponents. 7. ptr swt iry inbw.sn fxw nn wn swt.sn mi nty nn xpr.sn What of their own burial-places? Their walls are destroyed, their burialplaces do not even exist anymore like those who have never come to existence before. The writer extends here the attack on the influential teaching that strong tombs should be built that could survive and fight time to secure the afterlife, by challenging the long-established fame of the authors of these teachings. It seems that those specific authors were famous by instructing the people about the importance of building and furnishing the graves, as a temporary bridge for their bodies, in order to be transferred to the promised paradise. The writer asks the receiver to see by his eye what happened to their own burial-places, as they could not survive against time. The writer held here a comparison between the tomb builders, whose burial-places could not survive because of their limited resources, and religious-minded teachers who devoted their wealth to build great tombs with huge walls. The irony here is: both of them became equal as time made them suffer from a similar condition: the lack of graves that secure the afterlife.

855

Hany Rashwan 8. bw ii im sDd.f qdw.sn sDd.f xrtw.sn No one came back from there to narrate their after-death-nature or to narrate their after-death-concerns. 9. stmt.f ib.n r Hnt.tn r bw Smt.sn im or to comfort our hearts regarding your eagerness for the place they went to there. The writer extends his argument against those famous religious figures, asking the receiver if they can prove that those religious-minded teachers themselves have found the paradise which they have always promised to the people. He asks the receiver to use his logical thinking to assess the misleading content of those long-established teachings. 10. wDA.k ib.k r.s mht ib z Hr sAx n.k May you heal your heart about it and may the heart of every one neglected being turned to a glorified-deceased by you. 11. Sms ib.k wnn.kwi imy antyw Hr tp.kwi Follow your heart while you exist. Put the myrrh on your head. 12. wnx t[w] n.k m pAqt gs.ti m biAw mAaw n xtw-nTr Put on dress for you from fine linen that is anointed with true luxury items that belong to god’s things. The writer recalls the traditional religious practice of people offering many luxury items to the temple’s priests, mistakenly thinking that they are offering to the gods, and he asks the receiver to wear them instead of offering them. 13. imy HAw nfrw.kwi [m] bAgi ib.k Increase your happiness and [do not] let your heart be weary. 14. Sms ib.k Hna nfrw.k Follow your heart with your happiness. 856

The ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems 15. ir xtw.k tp tA m HD ib.k iw n.k hrw pfA n sbHwt Do your things on earth (be active) but do not upset your heart until that day of wailing comes to you. 16. bw sDm.n wrd-ib sbHAt.sn The deceased (lit. the one with weary heart) does not even hear their wailing. 17. bw Sd nAy.sn biAk ib.i z im m HAt.i Their mourning did not rescue my human heart from being there in my tomb. mAwt Refrain 1. ir hrw nfr m wrd.n z im.f Make a happy day that a man does not tire from it. 2. mk nn rdi.n z iTt xttw.f Hna.f Behold no one is allowed to take his things with him. 3. mk wi nn wn Sm.i iw.i anw Behold myself I could not go and come back again. 3. THE DEBATE BETWEEN A MAN AND HIS SOUL: To illustrate a literary argument this paper uses a short story that has been used in a poetic debate between a man and his soul, in which the man complains about his miserable life, which belongs to the Middle Kingdom (2000 B.C.-1700 B.C.).5 The man tries to convince his soul to commit suicide, to end his misery, thinking that his afterlife life might be better. In the third speech, the soul used a sad melodramatic story to persuade this man that his miserable situation is nothing if he is The paper follows the Hieroglyphic transcription of James Allen, 2011, pp. 282287. 5

857

Hany Rashwan compared with another person who faced a harder catastrophic situation. The whole focus of the soul's story is on young lives ruined before they can enjoy the fullness of life. The calamity and sadness are in the way that the young couple with their new born children are doomed before they can even taste life together. However, the short story leaves it open as to whether they do perish or not. It is a very dramatic portrayal of lethal danger that leaves the end open but bleak, revealing an extremely powerful imagery. 67. sDm r.k n.i mk nfr sDm n rmT May you listen to me. Behold it is good to listen to people 68. Sms hrw nfr smx mH Follow the happy time and forget the sadness (lit. the state of being worried and nervous about something in the future) 68-69. iw nDs skA.f Sdw.f The lad cultivates his small land by himself, 69-70. iw.f A[t]p.f Smw.f r Xnw dpt He carries himself and his harvest to the cubbyhole of the boat 70-71. stAs.f sqdwt Hb.f tkn He hauls the sail, as his festival is approaching soon 71-72. mA.n.f prt wxt nt mHyt when he sees the disappearance of the darkness of the northern rainy wind 72. rs m dpt He stayed awake in the boat 73-74. ra Hr aq pr Hna Hmt.f msw.f and when the sun began to enter he went up with his wife and his children

858

The ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems

74-75. Aq tp S Sn m grH Xr mryt Annihilation is atop the lake. The crocodile encircled (them) during the night, under the riverbank of the crocodiles. 75-76. Dr.in.f Hms psS.f m xrw Hr Dd Then he sat down (like a small child) ululating in a loud voice saying: 76-78. n rm.i n tfA mst nn n.s prt m imnt r kt Hr tA I am not crying for this young mother who will not emerge from the west in comparison with the other (woman who died) on earth 78. mHy.i Hr msw.s but I am sad about her young children 79-80. sdw m swHt mAw Hr n xnty n anxt.sn They have just broken the egg and they will see the crocodile's face of god Khenty. They had not yet lived. To fully appreciate the emotional persuasive power of this short story, I will rephrase it in my words, reconstructing what the soul narrated: There was a humble-young man who was fighting the hard circumstances of having no permanent job or income. This man got married to a younger girl who accepted to share with him this harsh life, surviving day by day. They used to go to the temple together, asking the god to help them and ensuring a better afterlife for them. He was happy that his young wife brought some children to his life. To feed them, he used a small piece of fertile land, by a Nile channel, to plant some crops in order to sell them and earn a little money that help him to survive with his small family another rotation of crops. He used to play with his young children after his hard work to make them happy. He was doing all that was possible to take care of his small family. He was by himself working this small piece of land. It was a difficult job for him, since his wife was occupied with taking care of their very young children, but he managed to achieve success and he carried all the harvest by himself to the boat. This boat had a protective cubbyhole that was designed to 859

Hany Rashwan protect him and his family from the night wind and rain. In the evening, he erected the mast of the boat in order to use the wind for moving the boat forward to the market, and with every move of the boat the man thought that he was going forward towards his feast, the deserved reward of working hard. It was a windy and rainy night but he stayed all the night awake, dreaming about how to celebrate with his small family, after selling the crops and feeling the reward in his hand. He said to himself: this dream will soon become true when the darkness of this windy, rainy night finishes and the boat reaches the market place. With the first light of the day, they all went out of the boat's cubbyhole, thinking that the boat had safely reached the market place during the night, but they were all shocked and scared to death when they saw that the boat was astray on the Nile, surrounded by hungry crocodiles and that the nearest riverbank was full of crocodiles as well. The man could hardly speak but he just said this short sentence: "Annihilation is atop the lake". The man realized that they were trapped beside the dwelling place of crocodiles. He could not even move the boat or ask help from any one. He just sat down like a small child feeling helpless, looking at his scared young wife with her children. They were looking at him as well, asking him to do anything or may be to blame him that he should not make use of the mast during the night since he was staying with them in the cubbyhole of the boat. The man did not care about what might happen to him as much as he was sad about the destiny of his beloved young wife in the afterlife. He was wondering if she would be able to have a happy afterlife destiny like her peers who died on the earth. But his most heartbreaking concern was related to his young children who had just been born (lit. broke their eggs); and they had not seen much happiness in their short lives, but instead they would see the face of the crocodiles that would devour them without any mercy. 4. ANALYSIS: These persuasive stories of suffering persons are not only designed to be an entertaining element in the discourse but mainly as a script for performance, in which the reader or the listener become its speaking voice. The receiver adopts the main story voice, by standing behind the suffering situations that are expressed in emotional poetic words and speaking them as his own. These persuasive sad stories can be related to the correlation between sadness and aesthetic enjoyment or pleasure. "The emotion of sadness often plays a crucial role in aesthetic experience: from stage tragedies and painterly representations of sad motifs to ‘tear-jerking’ literature and filmic genres such as the 860

The ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems melodrama. These various art forms not only represent sadness on the content level, but their audiences often feel the emotion as well." (Hanich, 2014, 130) This emotional union with the suffering character of the story forces the mental mechanism of the receiver to compare his actual suffering situation with those who suffered more than him. Consequently he feels psychologically satisfied that there are many people in much worse situations and thus considers himself fortunate because he had not gone through the same horrible situations. This way of designing the satisfactory argument can be really effective for broken people, i.e. who suffer from many hard situations and just need to find an encouragingstrong model to follow, in order to face and hence overcome their own hardship. It is a successful poetic argumentation practice, which has a long history in the ancient Near Eastern cultures afterwards, especially the ones created by a sacred voice. The Bible and Quran used many similar suffering stories, where the God shows how His chosen prophets suffered many hard afflictions, in order to carry the holy message. The God thus uses them not only as a leading model for people who needs such encouraging power but also to feel more relaxed and satisfied that they did not have equal hardship. Although the receivers feel sad about those suffering figures, this sadness is always mixed with a mysterious enjoyment that forces the mental mechanism of the receiver to appreciate his current miserable status without complaint. The main poetic argument in these persuasive stories is: compare your claimed miserable situation with those figures in order to see how lucky you still are. The persuasive emotional effect of such suffering stories is equal to the modern sad genres: Sadness plays an important role in the enjoyment of melodramas and other sad genres precisely because it contributes its intensifying or “energizing” share to the inherently pleasurable feeling of being moved. (Hanich, 2014, p. 140)

This kind of arguments can be only effective with people who have even the smallest degree of willingness to overcome the hardships they face, as this persuasive way help them to feel less miserable about their situation and encourage them to think about the reward of their patience afterwards. However, it is hard to convince someone has no hope left in his own miserable life. This matter can be obvious by the poetic refusal of the man in answering the story argument of his soul: 861

Hany Rashwan 95-97

mk baH rn.j m-a.k r st msHw r Hmst Xr aDw Xr mryt Behold, my name is reeking with you more than the smell of crocodiles, more than sitting under the slaughter place, under the riverbank of crocodiles. This poetic refusal verse contains two vocal wordplay ( a nonenclitic particle meaning behold and transliterated mk a preposition attached to second person suffix pronoun meaning together with and transliterated m-a.k) and ( a plural noun meaning crocodiles and transliterated msHw - an infinitive meaning sit down, dwell in, and transliterated Hmst). That is beside the heavy internal grammatical parallelisms. These interrelated poetic forms served to confirm and highlight the man's position against the soul's story. The two rhetorical systems illustrated in these two texts reflect the conflict between the two systems, which exist in every nation, especially within the religious discourse: one uses logic to answer questions and the other uses emotional, metaphorical, poetic statement, (which are considered from his view of point 'facts' as well) to support his answers. It can explain why ancient Egypt was described by the Greek historian Herodotus as conservative "to excess, far beyond any other race of men” when he visited Egypt in the fifth century BC (History II, ch. 37). Although, he acknowledged also another group of Egyptians who were using a visual-logical argument to convince the receivers to enjoy the earthly life as much as they can, because their bodies after death will be trapped in tight wooden coffins: In social meetings among the rich, when the banquet is ended, a servant carries round to the several guests a coffin, in which there is a wooden image of a corpse, carved and painted to resemble nature as nearly as possible, about a cubit or two cubits in length. As he shows it to each guest in turn, the servant says, 'Gaze here, and drink and be merry; for when you die, such will you be'. (History II, ch. 78)

This rhetorical paradox can be well observed in the case of searching for logical authority of religious metaphysical 'statements' or even questioning God’s existence. The religious-minded figures will always try to answer 862

The ancient Egyptian rhetorical systems logically but at certain point, they would declare their abhor of such logical approaches that ask them to develop logical answers for such religious-poetic statements. This dislike can be well illustrated in one of the sayings claimed to be of Imam al-Shāfīʿī (767-820 A.D./ 150-204 A.H.): "People did not become ignorant nor differed except after their abandonment of the Arabic language and their inclination to the language of Aristotle" (Al-Suyuti, n.d., p. 48) Critical education is the key to a flourishing logical-rational system; the education system which asks the student to memorize without any critical understanding of the studied content is the factor behind refusing the critical thinking methodologies.

5. CONCLUSION: It is misleading to assess any text belonging to the literary rhetorical system according to the rules of the philosophical-rational system, or vice versa. For example we cannot assess any religious text using the Greek-Roman labels, as the text will seem logically abortive. The Western studies will not be able to evaluate or genuinely appreciate the literary arguments and especially the ones offered by the sacred voices of ancient Near Eastern cultures by using the modern Western or the Greek-Roman rhetorical system, as these non-Western texts mainly belong to the literary rhetorical system, where there is no divorce between the creativity of employing all the available literary forms and producing an eloquent coherent content which matches the receiver's own taste and thus can easily penetrate his heart in order to deliver the required effect. The original literary form of the content, in the ancient Near Eastern cultures, is one effective tool in the persuasion process and without recognizing its effective role semantically, we will not be able to understand how once these texts have guided and influenced many generations, leaving impressive impact on their religious-social-political understandings. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Stephen Quirke-UCL, Elizabeth Thornton-UCLA, and Peter Philips-SOAS for their helpful comments. REFERENCES Al-Ansary, S. (2003). NP Structure Types in Spoken and Written Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) Corpora. In D. Parkinson & S. Farwaneh (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XV: Papers from the Fifteenth Annual

863

Hany Rashwan Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Salt Lake City 2001 (pp. 149–180). Amsterdam Studies in Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam: Johm Benjamins Publishing Co. Allen, J. (2011). The Debate between a Man and His Soul: A Masterpiece of Ancient Egyptian Literature. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, v. 44. Leiden: Brill. Al-Suyuti, J. A. (n.d.). Sawn al-mantiq wa al-kalam an fann al-mantiq wa al-kalam, taHqiq: Ali al-nashar wa Souad abd al-Raziq. Cairo: salsalah aHyaa alturath al-islamy. Fox, M. (1983). Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 1 (no. 1), 9-22. Fox, M. (1985). The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Garrett, M. (1998). Review of Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross cultural Introduction. Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 16 (no. 4), 431-433. Halldén, P. (2005). What Is Arab Islamic Rhetoric? Rethinking the History of Muslim Oratory Art and Homiletics. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 37 (no. 1), 19-38. Hanich, J., Wagner, V., Shah, M., Jacobsen, T., & Menninghaus, W. (2014). Why we like to watch sad films. The pleasure of being moved in aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8 (2), 130143. The History of Herodotus. (George Rawlinson, ed. and tr., 1885, vol. 2 New York: D. Appleton and Company.) Herodotus' Description of Egypt and the Egyptians: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Heroegy.html (Checked on 25/09/2015) Kennedy, G. (1998). Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Mao, LuMing. (2003). Reflective Encounters: Illustrating Comparative Rhetoric. Style 37 (no. 4), 401-425. Murphy, J. (1981). Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press. Woerther, F, (Ed.). (2009). Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds. Europaea Memoria. Reihe 1, Studien, Bd. 66. Hildesheim, NY: Olms. Young, C. (2004). Book Reviews. Southern Communication Journal, 70 (no. 1), 8189.

864

Studies in Logic

63 Argumentation and Reasoned Action

Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015 Volume II

This is Volume II of the proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation: Argumentation and Reasoned Action, held at the Argumentation Lab in Lisbon, Portugal, in June 2015. The European Conference on Argumentation (ECA) is a new pan-European initiative aiming to consolidate and advance various streaks of research into argumentation and reasoning: philosophy, communication, linguistics, discourse analysis, computer science, psychology, cognitive studies, legal theory, etc. The proceedings comprise what we think is the most complete statement of the state of the art of argumentation studies today across these disciplines. From ancient rhetoric to Artificial Intelligence, and from analytic philosophy to detailed empirical research, the contributors examine argumentation theory and practice with a special focus on argumentation aimed at reasoned action. It’s gratifying to have all this research collected in one source and realise the breadth and depth of the lively debates in argumentation studies.

Logic and Argumentation

63

Studies in Logic


Editors


Editors
