Co-herencia, Vol. 17, No. 32 (2020)

URI permanente para esta colección

https://hdl.handle.net/10784/17625

Examinar

Examinando Co-herencia, Vol. 17, No. 32 (2020) por Materia "Argumentation"

Mostrando 1 - 3 de 3
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Critical Agent, Deliberative Democracy, and Reason-Giving
    (Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Santibáñez, Cristián; Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción
    This paper aims at proposing a concept of a critical agent in dialogue with the practice of deliberative democracy, considering what reason-giving means. For this purpose, this paper first discusses what being or tending to be critical of oneself or third parties would mean. This section mainly draws on ideas from the theory of argumentation and informal logic. Second, the concept of deliberative democracy is addressed in light of the conceptual synergy that would be the result of the (potential) participation of a critical agent in such a sociopolitical context. This section examines some of the core ideas within the theory of deliberative democracy. Subsequently, the third and last section discusses Brandom’s inferentialist semantic proposal (2002, 2005) to address the problem of giving and receiving reason and see how this approach can contribute to a deliberation theory and a concept (and the education) of a critical agent. The conclusion section summarizes the main ideas and offers a counterpoint between the notion of agency, an important notion in my proposal, and the idea of person, a particularly valuable aspect in the theory of deliberative democracy.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Origin and function of argumentation: Steps towards an evolutionary and cognitive explanation, by Cristián Santibáñez (2018). Palestra, 370 p.
    (Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Olave, Giohanny; Universidad Industrial de Santander
    Dentro de la abundante bibliografía disponible en el campo de los estudios argumentativos, el libro del sociólogo y lingüista Cristián Santibáñez ofrece una perspectiva poco transitada en los estudios en español sobre el tema. Por medio de un enfoque evolutivo-cognitivo, Santibáñez responde en extenso a una pregunta esencial: “¿Por qué argumentamos?”. Pese a que el autor augura que responder este interrogante puede llegar a impacientar a los teóricos clásicos de la argumentación, la contribución que realiza en esa área es invaluable, pues abre el campo explicativo hacia investigaciones interdisciplinares que va sugiriendo a lo largo del libro, a propósito de problemáticas difíciles, como las relaciones entre razonamiento y argumentación; las bases filogenéticas y la ontogénesis de la conducta argumentativa; la explicación acerca de las acciones e interacciones no cooperativas en los intercambios sociales; o el desarrollo de una base evaluativa que introduzca los estudios de la metáfora en las teorías de la argumentación, entre otras cuestiones estimulantes.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    What Optimistic Responses to Deep Disagreement get Right (and Wrong)
    (Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Aikin, Scott F.; Vanderbilt University
    In this paper, I argue for three theses. First, that the problem of Deep Disagreement is usefully understood as an instance of the skeptical Problem of the Criterion. Second, there are structural similarities between proposed optimistic answers to deep disagreement and the problem of the criterion. Third, in light of these similarities, there are both good and bad consequences for proposed solutions to the problem of deep disagreement.