Why We Still Do Not Know What a “Real” Argument Is

G.C. Goddu


In his recent paper, “What a Real Argument is”, Ben Hamby attempts to provide an adequate theoretical account of “real” arguments. In this paper I present and evaluate both Hamby’s motivation for distinguishing “real” from non-“real” arguments and his articulation of the distinction. I argue that neither is adequate to ground a theoretically significant class of “real” arguments, for the articulation fails to pick out a stable proper subclass of all arguments that is simultaneously both theoretically relevant and a proper subclass of all arguments.


argument, “real”, prospective use, Hamby, theoretical relevance

Full Text:


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v34i1.3899

ISSN: 0824-2577