Oruç, Rahmi
Yükleniyor...
Araştırma projeleri
Organizasyon Birimleri
İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat Bölümü
Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat Bölümü’nün vizyonu, özellikle Avrupa ve Orta Doğu dillerinde yazılmış eserleri hem birbirleriyle hem de Türk Edebiyatı’yla mukayese ederek, medeniyetlerin geçişkenliği hakkında bilgi üretmek ve farkındalık yaratmaktır. Eleştirel bakış açısının temel alınacağı Bölümde, edebiyat, dil, kültür, sinema alanlarındaki gelişmeleri yakından takip edip, tartışmalara katkı sağlayacak bilim insanları yetiştirmeyi hedeflemektedir.
Adı Soyadı
Rahmi Oruç
İlgi Alanları
Felsefe, Din, İletişim, Bilim teknolojisi
Kurumdaki Durumu
Aktif Personel
5 sonuçlar
Arama Sonuçları
Listeleniyor 1 - 5 / 5
Yayın Uses, motives, functions, and virtues of silence in argumentation in light of Jadal and Adab al-Bahth wa al-Munazarah(University of Malaya, 2021) Oruç, Rahmi; Oruç, Rahmi; Taiai, Maria; Oruç, Rahmi; İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat Bölümü; İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat BölümüMunazarah procedure determines who has the right to speak and who should remain silent until his turn comes. In fact, proper argumentation requires each party to remain silent where the right to speak is not theirs. However, the argumentation process in practice does not always follow the ideal rules of behaviour. One such instance is verbal aggressiveness, which often leads to anger and rapid information exchange with the offender. Such verbal exchange is generally characterized by an increase in volume and speed of speech, which usually lay the ground for a quarrel. The transition from healthy argumentation to quarrel is problematic because it changes the priorities of the parties involved in the verbal exchange from disclosing the truth to attacking the opponent. Then, the arguers are faced with the following question: What should I do when argumentation seems to be shifting to quarrel? Should I speak, or should I remain silent? The study argues the use of silence as an argumentation strategy prevents healthy argumentation from turning into a quarrel and enables discussants to conduct an ideal argumentation based on ethical standards. It does this in light of the disciplines of Jadal and Adab al-Bahth wa al-Munazarah. The study first explains how muna.arah procedure determines who has the right to speak and who should remain silent. Second, it discusses three argumentative moves in response to which silence might work better as an argumentative strategy. After that, it explores the intricate relationship between silence and tawfiq (divine aid). Finally, it investigates the relationship between silence - as a response to verbal aggressiveness - and the virtue of hilm (judiciousness).Yayın Sequencing critical moves for ethical argumentation practice: Mun??ara and the Interdependence of procedure and agent(2023) Oruç, Rahmi; Oruç, Rahmi; Oruç, Rahmi; Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali; Sadek, Karim; İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat Bölümü; İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat BölümüThe aim of this paper is to highlight an interdependence between procedural and agential norms that undermines their neat separation when appraising argumentation. Drawing on the mun??ara tradition, we carve a space for sequencing in argumentation scholarship. Focusing on the antagonist’s sequencing of critical moves, we identify each sequence’s corresponding values of argumentation: coalescence, reliability, and efficacy. These values arise through the mediation of virtues and simultaneously underpin procedural as well as agential norms. Consequently, an ambiguity between procedure and agent becomes apparent. This ambiguity hints at the potential for a virtue theory of argumentation that draws on procedural norms.Yayın Assessing coherence and fidelity: Credibility of COVID-19 narratives(John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2024) Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali; Turner, Hossein; Oruç, Rahmi; Şahin, Goncagül; İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat Bölümü; Medeniyetler İttifakı Enstitüsü, Medeniyet Araştırmaları Ana Bilim DalıNon-fictional narratives have an open-ended character that projects roles and values to those who participate in them. Narrative participation, in turn, entails narrative assessment and identification processes, through which adherence to values and positions may fail or be achieved. In the analysis of interviews with university students across Turkey, we draw on Fisher's narrative paradigm to focus on how our participants carry out assessments of narrative credibility. To elucidate narrative coherence and fidelity, we take inspiration from an argumentative-rhetorical perspective, and focus specifically on the relationship among the criteria identified in the literature on narrative assessment. Our study of interviewee evaluations of COVID-19 narratives confirms the use of the coherence criteria, calls into question the fidelity criteria, and highlights the relevance of identification as a basic process for fidelity assessments. We conclude by discussing our limitations and directions for further research.Yayın What do we do with arguments?: Situating munāẓara in contemporary argumentation scholarship(İbn Haldun Üniversitesi, Medeniyetler İttifakı Enstitüsü, 2022) Oruç, Rahmi; Oruç, Rahmi; Şentürk, Recep; Medeniyetler İttifakı Enstitüsü, Medeniyet Araştırmaları Ana Bilim DalıThis study introduces Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓara, literally the manners of inquiry and argumentation, to contemporary argumentation scholarship. To do so, I begin with a rather broad research question: Why do argumentation theories envision different goals? To what extent do different conceptions of self and truth shape this diversity? The thesis argues that our conception of truth and self informs our model of argumentation by shaping the theoretical preferences and analytical tools such that they determine what amounts to observation and violation of the idealized rules of argumentation. Employing the five components of a research program in argumentation as its methodology developed by pragma-dialectics, in the first section, I explore pragma-dialectics, epistemological approach to argumentation, virtue approach to argumentation, and formal pragmatics of Habermas. I show how these theories are developed within certain philosophies of reasonableness shaped by considerations of truth and self. In the second section, I proceed to Munāẓara. I introduce the discipline and provide its intellectual history and development, its procedure, the disagreements between Munāẓara scholars, and finally, its peculiarities in comparison with the contemporary theories. I argue that Munāẓara is a dialogicallyepistemic agent-driven theory of argumentation. I trace its attention to the dialogue, knowledge, and virtue to the multiplex theory of truth. The self can gradually arrive at truth, first through justification and argumentation, second through virtue.Yayın The virtuous arguer as a virtuous sequencer(Springer Science and Business Media B.V., 2023) Oruç, Rahmi; Sadek, Karim; Küçükural, Önder; Oruç, Rahmi; Küçükural, Önder; İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat BölümüIn this paper we draw on the munazara tradition to intervene in the debate on whether argument assessment should be agent- or act-based. We introduce and deploy the notion of sequencing - the ordering of the antagonist's critical moves - to make explicit an ambiguity between the agent and the act of arguing. We show that sequencing is a component of argumentation that inextricably involves the procedure as well as the agent and, therefore, its assessment cannot be adequately undertaken if either agent- or act-based norms are ignored or demoted. We present our intervention through a challenge that virtue argumentation needs to address for it to be considered an alternative to existing theories of argument assessment (Section 2). We then briefly introduce munazara and focus on its notion of sequencing to explicate the interdependence between the agent and the procedure (Section 3). Next, we address the challenge by offering an account of the virtuous arguer as a virtuous sequencer (Section 4). In conclusion, we reflect on the implications of sequencing on virtue argumentation and the norms of argumentation.
