Argumentation and the Challenge of Time: Perelman, Temporality, and the Future of Argument

Affecting Argumentative Action: The Temporality of Decisive Emotion

“…Argumentation is an unfolding process in which the audience is an active participant, not a “mere passive receptor” (Tindale 2018 , p. 30). Although I emphasize this aspect of audience agency because of its prevalence in contemporary rhetorical theory (Hoff-Clausen 2018 ), I also stress that creating adherence in decision making contexts depends on whether people are committed to carrying out the (future) actions they decide on in the very present (Scott 2020 ). The uncertain nature of rhetoric makes time an essential factor (Zarefsky 2020 , p. 301).…”

“…Mehlenbacher pointed to the underlying emotional nature of reasoning based on anticipation (prolepsis), in the sense that an anticipation of uncertain but imaginable outcomes “allows us to determine our current position in terms of desires, reason, and emotion for deliberation about prospective outcomes in terms of current actions or choices.” ( 2017 , p. 246). Scott ( 2020 ) explored the “internal temporality” of argumentation, understood as the temporal unfolding of the involved actions associated with argumentation, such as speaking, listening, doubting, and judging (p. 33), although he only briefly tied temporality to emotion in argumentation. In fact, the following passage is the only place in Scott’s paper where he explicitly mentioned affect (neither pathos nor emotion appear in the paper): The concept of adherence is essentially temporal—in the same way that something like a promise cannot be understood without a temporal reference to a possible future where it is either honoured or broken.…”

“…In fact, the following passage is the only place in Scott’s paper where he explicitly mentioned affect (neither pathos nor emotion appear in the paper): The concept of adherence is essentially temporal—in the same way that something like a promise cannot be understood without a temporal reference to a possible future where it is either honoured or broken. With respect to adherence, this is to say that what a person is intellectually and affectively committed to at a given point in time cannot be reduced to any particular “present.” (Scott 2020 , p. 31). Indeed, adherence depends on both intellect and affect.…”

“…The concept of adherence is essentially temporal—in the same way that something like a promise cannot be understood without a temporal reference to a possible future where it is either honoured or broken. With respect to adherence, this is to say that what a person is intellectually and affectively committed to at a given point in time cannot be reduced to any particular “present.” (Scott 2020 , p. 31).…”

“…Such a commitment arises both because emotions experienced in relation to past events are re-interpreted and because emotions that may arise at future events are re-imagined. Scott ( 2020 ) underlined how adherence exists because of its relation to the past and future: On the side of the past, what we presently adhere to can be understood as a kind of personal precedent, as the past weighing on the present as a constraint on what we will consider to be argumentatively reasonable (from myself and from others). On the side of the future, we will find that adherence makes reference to a number of possible futures where, under certain conditions, we would be committed to acting in certain ways given our current configuration of value commitments.…”