Abstract
Analogy is analyzed as a process of implicit redefinition, which is based on the abstraction of a functional genus, i.e. a common generic property that is contextually essential for the purpose of the move. Based on the twofold genus-species relation and the corresponding topoi, the attributes of one of the terms of the analogy (the Analogue) are inherited by the generic concept and then transferred to the other subject (the Primary Subject). For this reason, this type of reasoning can be considered a strategy for introducing new implicit or explicit criteria of classification, which can result in the redefinition of an existing concept or the introduction of a new one. In the first case, new classification criteria expand the denotation of the analogue, thereby implicitly modifying its meaning. In the second case, a new definition is provided of a new implicit functional genus, under which the two different analogical concepts fall.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aristotle 1991. Posterior Analytics. Translated by J. Barnes. In The Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Aristotle 1991. Prior Analytics. Translated by A. J. Jenkinson. In The Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Aristotle 1991. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts. In The Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Aristotle 1991. Topics. Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. In The Works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Ashley, K. 1991. Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals in HYPO. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34 (6): 753–796.
Boethius, A. M. S. 1978. Translated by E. Stump. De topicis differentiis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Malden: Blackwell.
Cendon, P., ed. 2011. Commentario al codice civile. Milano: Giuffrè.
Colombo, G. M. 2003. Sapiens aequitas: L’equitā nella riflessione canonistica tra i due codici. Roma: Pontificia Università Gregoriana.
De Vries, P. 1965. Let me count the ways. Boston: Little Brown.
Friesen, J. 1996. When common law courts interpret civil codes. Wisconsin International Law Journal 15:1–27.
Glucksberg, S., and B. Keysar. 1990. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97 (1): 3–18.
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Guastini, R. 2011. Interpretare e argomentare. Milano: Giuffrè.
Hesse, M. 1965. Aristotle’s logic of analogy. The Philosophical Quarterly 15 (61): 328–340.
Kienpointner, M. 1986. Towards a typology of argument schemes. In Argumentation across the lines of discipline: Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986, eds. H. van Eemeren, R Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, 275–297. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009a. Reasoning from classification and definition. Argumentation 23:81–107.
Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2009b. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42 (2): 154–182.
Rigotti, E. 2006. Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation 20:519–540.
Rigotti, E., and S. Greco-Morasso. 2010. Comparing the argumentum model of Topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and material components. Argumentation 24:489–512.
Searle, J. 1981. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sorensen, R. 1991. Vagueness and the desiderata for definition. In Definitions and definability: philosophical perspectives, eds. J. Fetzer, D. Shatz, and N. Schlesinger, 71–109. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Stern, J. 2000. Metaphor in context. Cambridge: MIT.
Stern, J. 2008. Metaphor, semantics and context. In The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. R. Gibbs, 262–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tarello, G. 1980. L’interpretazione della legge. Milano: Giuffrè.
Thomson, J. 1971. A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.
Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Macagno, F. (2014). Analogy and Redefinition. In: Ribeiro, H. (eds) Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. Argumentation Library, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06333-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06334-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)