The Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE SPECIAL ISSUE DEDICATED TO PETER HOUTLOSSER (1956-2008) AUGUST 2008 Dear friends, Although to most of us the death of Peter Houtlosser did not come as a surprise – as we all knew he had suffered from cancer for two years – we were all stricken with grief at such a great loss. Peter was a strong-minded person. For him, ‘fighting cancer’ was too much of a cliché, but giving in to it was no option either. Peter simply chose to continue living his life as normally as his health could allow. In fact, despite illness, Peter continued working on projects he had already started, attended conferences, visited new places and, not to forget, made new friends. Peter died on February 14th, 2008, at the age of 51. With this special issue of the Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle we would like to commemorate Peter Houtlosser as we all knew him: a great person and a great argumentation scholar. Frans van Eemeren 2 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle TABLE OF CONTENTS Peter did not waste his time By Frans van Eemeren 3 Peter in the eyes of his students By Theodora Achourioti, Bilal Amjarso, Corina Andone, Dima Mohammed, Marija 4 Snieckute and Assimakis Tseronis Remembering Peter 5 Teacher and Friend By Theodora Achourioti 5 Question time! By Bilal Amjarso 5 A walk through the South of Amsterdam By Corina Andone 5 The last domain By Merel Boers 6 Peter as a mystery guest By Eveline Feteris 7 Unfollowed advice By Bart Garssen 7 The Houtlosser Dilemma By Erik C. W. Krabbe 8 With Peter to Koper By Jan Albert van Laar and Henrike Jansen 8 “He’s always late” By Marcin Lewiński 9 Jammer hè? By Bert Meuffels 9 The charm of the old-fashioned By Dima Mohammed 10 “Good question!” By José Plug 10 Who's Afraid of Peter Houtlosser? By Leah Polcar 11 From student to colleague: My years with Peter By Agnès van Rees 11 “I am Rodie Risselada” By Francisca Snoeck Henkemans 12 Caring, Generous, Tease By Assimakis Tseronis 12 A present for Peter By Jean Wagemans 12 An Hour with Peter Interview with Bilal Amjarso 13 Tributes for Peter Houtlosser 16 News 19 Recent book publications by the Amsterdam School 21 Call for Papers for the 7th ISSA Conference 21 3 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle PETER DID NOT WASTE HIS Organisation for Scientific Research, which TIME allowed these students to write their doctoral dissertations as part of a research program on By Frans van Eemeren strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Even after he had to withdraw from other activities Peter Houtlosser was someone who did not want to due to his illness, Peter continued to advise these waste time. When he discovered in the 1970s that and other talented students. These tasks he studying Dutch Language and Literature did not performed, like everything else he did for us, with live up to his expectations, he decided to move on his whole heart. Peter certainly did not waste his to a more concrete occupation. He became a time. scenery carpenter at the Nederlandse Opera. Fortunately, after five years he regarded his carpentry as finished and returned (in 1983) to the university. This time he found in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam exactly what he had been looking for: a field of study that captured his interest and professors who inspired him. In spite of their initial reluctance because of Peter’s persistent way of questioning them, his professors discovered pretty quickly that his critical attitude was caused only by his authentic desire to understand at all times precisely how things are – whatever these things might have been. To my mind, this urge to understand, not only in his working life, was – combined with his striking personality – one of Peter’s greatest assets. During the past twelve years Peter As a comeback student, Peter became Houtlosser and I concentrated our joint research for fascinated by the study of argumentation. It the most part on the design quality of therefore came as no surprise that he wanted to be argumentative discourse captured by the notion a PhD student and write a doctoral dissertation. ‘strategic maneuvering’. We wanted to extend the The results of his doctoral research were published pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation in in 1995 in the monograph Standpunten in een such a way that the analysis and evaluation could kritische discussie [Standpoints in a critical become more refined and better accounted for. To discussion], which is still quoted frequently by reach our goal, we aimed for enriching our Dutch colleagues and students. Meanwhile Peter dialectical theoretical framework systematically had acquired a taste for research and knew for with rhetorical insights. As a matter of course, we certain that it was his kind of thing. He and I were eager to discuss the views we developed with together started a comprehensive research project others in the field interested in the same problems aimed at integrating insights from rhetoric in the or similar problems. dialectical theory of argumentation developed in In our publications on strategic Amsterdam. Peter, who had become an Assistant maneuvering, starting in 1998, Peter Houtlosser Professor in our department and Book Review and I claimed that a full analysis and evaluation of Editor of the journal Argumentation, proved to be argumentative discourse is possible only if the an extremely active and productive scholar who argumentation concerned is first situated in the rapidly gained a considerable international communicative context in which it occurs. This reputation. His intense way of discussing research means that pragma-dialecticians, next to their problems has become legendary among his analytically motivated theoretical model of critical colleagues, and all his friends in the international discussion designed for enabling a normative community of argumentation theorists will miss treatment of argumentation, also need to have an him dearly. empirically justified theoretical concept of the Peter also enjoyed teaching, especially in communicative activity type in which the the international research Master program argumentation takes place. Communicative activity Rhetoric, Argumentation theory and Philosophy. types are connected with certain institutionalized The idea that talented students from all over the spheres or domains of discourse and they have a world had come to Amsterdam to study more or less conventional format that is argumentation had a strong appeal to him. He instrumental in realizing the primary goals of the always tried to get the maximum out of his students activity types concerned. In characterizing a and, in turn, the students considered him a communicative activity type argumentatively, we marvelous teacher. In an effort to keep the best argued that the parameters pertinent to students somewhat longer with us, he applied – distinguishing between the one activity type and successfully – for a grant from the Netherlands another could be derived from the distinctive 4 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle features of the four stages distinguished in the That is why prior to meeting with pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion. Peter, you knew you had better prepare yourself In this way, crucial theoretical instruments were very well, for you knew nothing would escape created for linking the empirical context of the his scrutiny. You became prepared for a long rhetorical dimension of strategic maneuvering discussion, and for a challenging critic who systematically with the ideal of resolving hardly ever got tired of discussing every last differences of opinion on the merits by critically detail of your text. He had the exceptional testing the tenability of the standpoints at issue that ability to see indefinite problems, for example, is the normative context of the dialectical seeing that things did not follow or that claims dimension. Peter Houtlosser and I were out to were not well supported, as well as the identify the preconditions for carrying out incredible persistence in not turning a blind eye argumentative discourse in a certain to these problems. We would often leave his communicative activity type that determine the office confused and with more questions than constraints and opportunities of strategic answers, thanks to his habit of confronting our maneuvering in that activity type. ideas with even more ideas. When Peter and I started our project on Even though we knew that we would strategic manoeuvring in argumentative activity be exposed to his criticism and that we would types, Peter had already been diagnosed with run the risk of getting confused, we were still cancer and he knew that his chances for survival eager to meet Peter. Perhaps we were tempted were very slim, if not non-existent. All the same he by the disillusionment, which we knew that he wanted to go on with the work we had started. This would certainly offer. It was not in spite of, but is why he spent a considerable amount of the through his never-ending criticism that Peter energy he had left on continuing his research and made us feel appreciated. Peter always took our presenting his views to others. Sadly, Peter did not views and doubts seriously. live to see the final results, but his work will live We always learned something from on in the work of his colleagues and students. Peter, even if it was not what we had expected, like, for instance, when he gave a rather detailed exposition of the history of the Netherlands. PETER IN THE EYES OF HIS Here, Peter included the genealogy of William STUDENTS of Orange, the separation between the Catholics and the Protestants, accompanied by a drawing By Theodora Achourioti, Bilal Amjarso, Corina of the map of the Netherlands on the whiteboard Andone, Dima Mohammed, Marija Snieckute and illustrating the different regions where the Assimakis Tseronis important events took place.