Pascal’s wager: tracking an intended reader in the structure of the argument

• Authors: Svačinová Iva
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Pascal’s wager is the name of an argument in favor of belief in God presented by Blaise Pascal in §233 of Thoughts. Ian Hacking (1972) pointed out that Pascal’s text involves three different versions of the argument. This paper proceeds from this identification, but it concerns an examination of the rhetorical strategy realized by Pascal’s argumentation. The final form of Pascal’s argument is considered as a product that could be established only through a specific process of persuasion led with respect to an intended reader with a particular set of initial beliefs. The text uses insights from the pragma‐dialectical approach to argumentation, especially the concept of rhetorical effectiveness of particular choices from the topical potential. The argumentation structure of Pascal’s wager is considered to be a reflection of the anticipated course of dialogue with the reader critically testing the sustainability of Pascal’s standpoint “You should believe in God”. Based on the argumentation reconstruction of three versions of the argument, Pascal’s idea of opponent/audience is identified. A rhetorical analysis of the effects of his argumentative strategy is proposed. The analysis is based on two perspectives on Pascal’s argument: it examines the strategy implemented consistently by all arguments and the strategy of a formulation of different versions of the wager.

Keywords

EN

argumentation structure; Pascal’s wager; pragma‐dialectics; rhetorical analysis; strategic maneuvering; topical potential

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. KEN w Krakowie, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii
• Journal: ARGUMENT: Biannual Philosophical Journal
• Year: 2016
• Volume: Tom: 6
• Issue: Numer: 2
• Pages: 391-412

Dates

published

2016

Contributors

author

Svačinová Iva

• Masaryk University, Brno

References

• Archie, L. & Archie, J. G. (2004). Reading for philosophical inquiry: A brief introduction to philosophical thinking ver.0.21, An open source reader. Retrieved from: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/introbook.pdf (01.02.2016).
• van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma‑dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin:de Gruyter.
• van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma‑dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2(2), 271–291.
• van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma‑dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma‑dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance (pp. 131–159). In: F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.). Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
• van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2007). Argumentative indicators: A pragma‑dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Franklin, J. (1998). Two caricatures. Part I: Pascal’s wager. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 44(2), 109–114.
• Garssen, B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma‑dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek. Dordrecht: ICG Printing b.v.
• Gerlofs, J. M. (2009). The use of conditionals in argumentation: A proposal for the analysis and evaluation of agumentatively used conditionals. Dissertation thesis. Retrieved from: http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/65630 (01.02.2016).
• Hacking, I. (1972). The logic of Pascal’s wager. American Philosophical Quarterly, 9(2), 186–192.
• Hájek, A. (2012). Pascal’s wager. In: E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/pascal‑wager/ (01.02.2016).
• Jordan, J. (2006). Pascal’s wager: Pragmatic arguments and belief in God. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pascal, B. (2013). Thoughts. (M. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• van Poppel, L. (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma‑dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Dissertation thesis. Retrieved from: http://dare.uva.nl/record/1/399432 (01.02.2016).
• Saka, P. (2005). Pascal’s wager about God. In: J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.). Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from: http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc‑wag/ (01.02.2016).
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1997). Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: Sit Sac.
• Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting: An invitation to philosophy. New York: Macmillan.