Skip to main content

Analogy, Supposition, and Transcendentality in Narrative Argument

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 31))

Abstract

Rodden writes, “How do stories persuade us? How do they ‘move’—and move us? The short answer: by analogies.” Rodden’s claim is a natural first view, also held by others. This chapter considers the extent to which this view is true and helpful in understanding how fictional narratives, taken as wholes, may be argumentative, comparing it to the two principal (though not necessarily exclusive) alternatives that have been proposed: understanding fictional narratives as exhibiting the structure of suppositional argument, or the structure of a kind of transcendental argument. Three key aspects of understanding a fictional narrative as an argument from analogy are identified. First, the argument will be relativistic or depend in an essential way upon the circumstances or intentions of the auditor or author. Second, in view of the first aspect, the argument will be loose and subjective, and accordingly less likely to yield knowledge. Third, the argument will not exhibit a distinctive structure applicable only to fictional narratives. I find that the third, and sometimes the first and second, of these same three aspects apply to understanding fictional narratives as suppositional arguments. I present considerations that point to a way of establishing that some extended fictions exhibit the structure of a kind of transcendental argument that is neither relativistic nor subjective, is knowledge-generating, and is uniquely applicable to fictional narratives. This supports literary cognitivism—the thesis that “literary fiction can be a source of knowledge in a way that depends crucially on its being fictional.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mikkonen says “conclusion” here (not my ‘material’), but conclusion is not really the point. For instance, the level-(ii) argument of Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is indirect, but the novel’s opening sentence is widely regarded as its philosophical conclusion: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”

  2. 2.

    Here is Walton’s story scheme for Thompson’s analogical argument, modified only by putting it in the form of a conditional: ‘If person x has another person y attached to his/her body, and person x had no choice about the arrangement, and having y attached is an encumbrance for x, and having this encumbrance will hinder x’s daily activities, and y will die if removed from x, and y can only survive if attached to x for 9 months, then x can make a choice about removing y’ (p. 201).

  3. 3.

    In fact, some of Walton’s illustrations do not even clearly involve stories, as in the case of the argument from the following analogy: “requiring students to take a course in a Reason and Faith category would be like requiring them to take a course in astronomy and astrology” (pp. 208–209). Where is the depiction of a connected sequence of specific events or actions (p. 199)?

  4. 4.

    For example: “As truth distinguishes our writings from those of idle romances which are filled with monsters, the productions, not of nature, but of distempered brains…” (1st para. of Ch. I, Book IV); “Examine your heart, my good reader, and resolve whether you do believe these matters with me. If you do, you may now proceed to their exemplification in the following pages: if you do not, you have, I assure you, already read more than you have understood…” (last para. of Ch. I, Book VI).

  5. 5.

    Consider this description of the novel: “…an ironic fantasy of Oxford undergraduate life a 100 or so years ago. The characters’ speech and motives are absurd in about equal measure, but one would be missing the point to hold this against the work. For the author is plainly not seeking psychological verisimilitude (…) The interest of the work is essentially that of a tour de force: how long can the author retain our interest while so consciously eschewing psychological plausibility?” (Currie 2012, p. 29 & n. 7).

  6. 6.

    Compare Doody (2009, pp. 155–157): “Fiction knows that fable packs the punch, has the charge it wants. At the same time, the prose fiction novel knows that the fable lacks what the Novel always wants to offer – full characterization and length (…) ‘This is all you need to know, for my point’, says the philosopher, brusquely finishing his fable so he can get on with the job. ‘Wait, wait’, cries the Novel. ‘This is the job! I want to know more and I don’t care so much about your point. For your point might not be true if we knew more. Let us test it by amplifcatio’ (…) No parable is safe (…) We know the story of the Prodigal Son (…) ‘But’, says the Novel, ‘that’s a great story, but I want to know more’ (…) And so Henry Fielding writes the whole story anew in Tom Jones, the story of the wronged Prodigious Son and the father who must in the end seek forgiveness.”

  7. 7.

    A recent influential article on introspection (Schwitzgebel 2008) poses little threat to my points here concerning human nature and its operant principles, because the focus of the article is on the untrustworthiness of introspection of immediate conscious experience. Differences among auditors in the perceived believability of an extended fictional narrative may be largely attributable to relatively extraneous factors, such as the setting of the narrative. For example, if I could get past the fantastic details of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, I think I could better appreciate these novels as implicating truths of human nature.

  8. 8.

    With this and the point above that being believable is a central necessary condition for an extended fictional narrative to be good, the present account appears to satisfy the requirement of “aesthetic cognitivism” that “a necessary relation between the capacity of a work to provide knowledge and the success (or lack thereof) of that work qua art must be established” (McGregor 2016, p. 327).

  9. 9.

    I am grateful to Lyra Hostetter, Kenneth Olson, and Teresa Plumer for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

References

  • Adler, J. 2007. Asymmetrical analogical arguments. Argumentation 21: 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, L. 2010. Getting arguments out of narrative. Posted October 19, 2010 on ARGTHRY, the listserv of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beardsley, M.C. 1975. Thinking straight. Principles of reasoning for readers and writers. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, L. 1895. What the tortoise said to Achilles. Mind 4: 278–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, N. 2002. The wheel of virtue: Art, literature, and moral knowledge. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60: 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleridge, S.T. 1985 [1817]. Biographia Literaria Ch. 14. In Samuel Taylor Coleridge, ed. H.J. Jackson, 314-320. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G. 2012. Literature and truthfulness. In Rationis defensor: Essays in honour of Colin Cheyne, ed. J. Maclaurin, 23–31. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. 1991. Three varieties of knowledge. In A. J. Ayer: Memorial essays, ed. A. Phillips-Griffiths, 153–166. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doody, M. 2009. Philosophy of the novel. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 63: 153–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W.R. 1987. Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaiman, N. 2015. Trigger warnings: Short fictions and disturbances. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, L. 2002. Aesop’s fables: A new translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T. 1989. Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic 11: 141–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T., and L. Ayers. 2012. Logic, parables, and argument. Informal Logic 32: 161–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, M. 2010. How and what we can learn from fiction. In A companion to the philosophy of literature, ed. G.L. Hagberg and W. Jost, 350–366. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarini, M. 2004. A defense of non-deductive reconstructions of analogical arguments. Informal Logic 24: 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, L.H. 2006. Motion pictures as a philosophical resource. In Philosophy of film and motion pictures: An anthology, ed. N. Carroll and J. Choi, 397–405. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Literature as fable, fable as argument. Philosophy and Literature 33: 369–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair. 1977. Logical self-defense. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juthe, A. 2005. Argument by analogy. Argumentation 19: 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvernbekk, T. 2003. On the argumentative quality of explanatory narrative. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and F.A. Snoeck Henkemans, 269–282. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lamarque, P. 2004. On not expecting too much from narrative. Mind & Language 19: 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. The opacity of narrative. London: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maioli, R. 2014. David Hume, literary cognitivism, and the truth of the novel. Studies in English Literature 54: 625–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, R. 2016. Narrative representation and phenomenological knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 99: 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkonen, J. 2011. Philosophy through literature. Ph.D. dissertation available at: https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/66808/978-951-44-8587-9.pdf?sequence=1. Is the basis of his 2013 book, The cognitive value of philosophical fiction. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Nagel, T. 1979. Mortal questions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M.C. 1990. Love’s knowledge: Essays on philosophy and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmos, P. 2013. Narration as argument. In Virtues of argumentation: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. D. Mohammed and M. Lewinski, 1–14. Windsor, ON (CD ROM).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Classical fables as arguments: Narration and analogy. In Systematic approaches to argument by analogy, ed. H.J. Ribeiro, 189–208. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Story credibility in narrative arguments. In Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 155–167. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, W.J. 1973. Two dramatists: Lovelace and Richardson in Clarissa. Studies in the Novel 5: 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. Traité de l’Argumentation: La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumer, G. 2015a. On novels as arguments. Informal Logic 35: 488–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015b. A defense of taking some novels as arguments. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. B.J. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 1169–1177. Amsterdam: Sic Sat (CD ROM).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Argumentatively evil storytelling. In Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the first European conference on argumentation, Lisbon, 9–12 June 2015, Vol. I, ed. D. Mohammed and M. Lewinski, 615–630. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. 1981. Reason, truth and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodden, J. 2008. How do stories convince us? Notes towards a rhetoric of narrative. College Literature 35: 148–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, P. 2010. Philosophy, adversarial argumentation, and embattled reason. Informal Logic 30: 203–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, R.A. 1979. Analogues of argument in fictional narrative. Poetics 8: 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwitzgebel, E. 2008. The unreliability of naive introspection. Philosophical Review 117: 245–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, R. 2007. Transcendental arguments: A plea for modesty. Grazer Philosophische Studien 74: 143–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, B. 1968. Transcendental arguments. Journal of Philosophy 65: 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swirski, P. 2007. Of literature and knowledge: Explorations in narrative thought experiments, evolution and game theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, B.N. 2001. Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic 21: 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2012. Story similarity in arguments from analogy. Informal Logic 32: 190–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weir, A. 2014. The Martian. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J., and B. Hudak. 1989. By parity of reasoning. Informal Logic 11: 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilbert Plumer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Plumer, G. (2017). Analogy, Supposition, and Transcendentality in Narrative Argument. In: Olmos, P. (eds) Narration as Argument. Argumentation Library, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56883-6_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics