Richard Friemann

I discuss Toulmin's (1964) concept of backing with respect to the emotional mode of arguing by examining an example from Fogelin (1985), where emotional backing justifies a warrant concerning when we should judge that a person is being pig-headed. While Fogelin 's treatment is consistent with contemporary emotion science, I show that it needs to be supplemented by therapeutic techniques by comparing an analysis of an emotional argument from Gilbert (1997). The introduction of psychotherapy into argumentation theory raises the question of the extent to which ordinary arguers can use such techniques. Psychotherapeutic techniques can be used in an intractable quarrel; is it fruitful to use them in the context of a deep disagreement?

In Coalescent Argumentation, Michael Gilbert comes closest to the ethical with the idea and role empathy plays within his scheme. Empathy is an act of will which one need never do. Rather than from need, it stems from a desire for the other pe rson. I would call this desire ethical. However, Gilbert understands empathy in cognitive terms. I am interested in seeing just what kinds of difference a more ethical interpretation of empathy would yield. Here I will be drawing on contemporary conti nental and feminist work.