Co-herencia, Vol. 17, No. 32 (2020)
URI permanente para esta colección
Examinar
Envíos recientes
Ítem Daniela Serna: From the Expanding Text to the Limits of Shape(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Mora Meléndez, Fernando; Universidad EAFITDaniela Serna (Medellín, 1991) conducts research and creates works of art on the transition between a literary verbal object and a visual artifact of a plastic and esthetic nature. Her work expands on the idea of formal literature, where the temporal and sensorial dimensions are in the reader’s imagination, to propose visual poems that encourage an experience of meaning that augments or blurs the limits of what is possible. This review deals with a set of works, the core topic of which enables multiple readings, which are carefully selected using a collection of ideological, political, and esthetic signs that the artist brings into her work and that allow us to question the relationship between the represented fictional world and the reader or observer’s representation.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 SantanderDentro 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.Ítem What Optimistic Responses to Deep Disagreement get Right (and Wrong)(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Aikin, Scott F.; Vanderbilt UniversityIn 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.Ítem “If I do not have any money, why do you want my inheritance?”: The Figure of the Beggar in the Poetry of Joaquín Pablo Posada(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Molina Morales, Guillermo; Instituto Caro y CuervoThe popular figure of the beggar is characterized by his joy, comicalness and social self-exclusion. In the nineteenth century, a new approach, one of a realistic nature, emerged around this character. This paper aims to recover to critical attention the poetic work of the Colombian Joaquín Pablo Posada, practically forgotten these days, in order to examine how he shapes the figure of the beggar in a time of transition. The findings show the existence of a hybrid imaginary (halfway between the cultured and the popular) of a jocular-serious nature. On the one hand, traditional traits are maintained, which include the beggar within the festive tendency. On the other hand, a modern denunciation is introduced about the beggar’s physical and moral sufferings, which challenge the discourse of bourgeois elites, without forsaking its central scheme. In the paper’s conclusions, the complexity of Posada's character is compared to other poetic subjects constructed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which usually adhere to a single face of this figure, either the traditional or modern trait.Ítem Endoxa, Hypólepsis Parádoxos and Martyría in Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Cárdenas, Luz Gloria; Universidad del CaucaThis paper initially discusses Aristotle’s theory of slavery in his Book I of Politics in an attempt to demonstrate the use of two procedures: a dialectic process, based on his discussion with Plato, and a rhetorical process, using metaphors and testimonies to set up an epistemological framework for his theory. Subsequently, this work focuses on an issue to be elucidated: the difference between endoxa, thesis (hypólepsis parádoxos), and testimony (martyría). In his description of the dialectical method in Topics, Aristotle explicitly states the meaning of “endoxa” and “thesis”. Furthermore, he discusses the term “testimony” in Books I and II of Rhetoric. Consequently, these two types of procedures, the types of proof, and the conclusions in his Book I of Politics will be identified based on the characteristics described in Topics and Rhetoric.Ítem The man behind the events: Human and political nature in classical historiography, by Antonio Hermosa Andújar (2019), Athenaica Ediciones Universitarias, 246 p.(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Ordóñez, Vicente; Universidad de ValenciaWhat are we? With this question, the essay The man behind the events opens, Antonio Hermosa questioning himself and directly questioning the reader, who encourages them to reflect on the ethical-political bases from which coexistence or justice is organized, dissociating the question of any identity interpretation because what is at stake is to discover the ontoanthropological structure of sapiens from some decisive documents that emerged from the Western tradition.Ítem Reflective Judgment, Common Sense, and Exemplariness. A Study on the Paradigm of Judgment and its Reception by Alessandro Ferrara and Hannah Arendt(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Castro-Hernández, Juan Carlos; Universidad Nacional de ColombiaThe paradigm of judgment is a rationality model that intends to stand as a positive alternative in view of the current challenges posed by the linguistic change of philosophy in contemporary thinking. In the face of the difficult task of defending universalist principles in the current culture, this model aims to take a positive stance on issues such as the normative validity that may affect the relationships between human action and deliberation. To fulfill its goal, the paradigm of judgment endorses a form of normativity with no principles (exemplary validity), which is rooted in Kant’s reflective judgment and the sensus communis (common sense) of the humanistic rhetoric tradition. The objective of this paper is to present this model of rationality under the Kantian philosophy, and through an exploration of the historico-philosophical background (Gadamer) and a detour along the humanistic rhetoric tradition (Aristotle and Vico), it seeks to put aside the esthetic emphasis in Kant’s groundwork. Finally, the scope and relevance of this paradigm in the reappropriation by two of its interpreters in contemporary philosophy, Alessandro Ferrara and Hannah Arendt, are assessed.Ítem Social Mobilization and Deliberation The Collective Action Frame as the Conclusion of a Deliberative Dialogue(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Mejía Saldarriaga, Daniel; Rocío Arango, María; Universidad EAFITThe purpose of this paper is to explain the collective action of social movement organizations by means of framing processes that are understood as the result of a deliberative dialogue. To this end, the text is divided into four sections. The first section introduces the framing theory of social movement studies; the second section examines different explanations concerning the creation of a collective action framework. The third section considers the characterization of Walton and Krabbe’s deliberative dialogue (2017) as well as Fairclough and Fairclough’s practical reasoning scheme (2012) for the purpose of tracing a relationship between collective action framing and such dialogues. The last section concludes that the collective action of activists involved in the framing processes can be understood as a deliberate collective action.Ítem Deliberation and Collective Identity. Commisive, Directive and Expressive Uses of Argument(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Marraud, Hubert; Universidad Autónoma de MadridThe prevailing conception of argumentation continues to favor the representational dimension of language and, therefore, ignores or underestimates the compromising, directive, or expressive functions of argumentation. This paper examines the uses of argumentation in the public arena, focusing on deliberation and negotiation in particular, to bring to light and assert the importance of the non-persuasive roles of argumentation, including social identity construction and modeling.Ítem Self-deliberation and the Strategy of the Pseudo-dialogue(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Tindale, Christopher W.; Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric University of WindsorThe New Rhetoric identifies the self-deliberator as one of three main types of audience. But such a turn toward the self is at odds with studies of contemporary argumentation, particularly social argumentation. Argumentation takes place “out there”, modifying the environments in which audiences operate. Equally interesting is the use of self-deliberation as a rhetorical strategy. Arguing with oneself, especially when that self is distanced in some way from the individual involved, employs self-deliberation beyond the ends that Perelman assigned to it. In this paper, my goal is to explore the nature of the self-deliberator as an audience and self-deliberation as a rhetorical strategy employed in argumentation.Ítem An Argumentative Approach to “Framing”. Framing, Deliberation and Action in an Environmental Conflict(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Fairclough, Isabela; Mădroane, Irina Diana; University of Central Lancashire; University of TimișoaraThis paper proposes a new theorization of the concept of “framing”, in which argumentation has a central role. When decision-making is involved, to frame an issue is to offer the audience a salient and thus potentially overriding premise in a deliberative process that can ground decision and action. The analysis focuses on the Roşia Montană case, a conflict over policy that developed over the years into an environmental social movement and, in September 2013, culminated in the most significant public protests in Romania since the 1989 Revolution. Starting from Entman’s understanding of framing as “selection and salience”, several framing strategies are identified and discussed, illustrating three main mechanisms. The way in which “selection and salience” operates via a range of argument schemes in a deliberative, decision-making process, in order to produce framing effects (including, possibly, collective mobilization) is illustrated with examples from the 2013 campaign and protests (slogans, websites, blogs and newspaper articles).Ítem Critical Agent, Deliberative Democracy, and Reason-Giving(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Santibáñez, Cristián; Universidad Católica de la Santísima ConcepciónThis 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.Ítem Multidimensionality and the Validity of Deliberation(Universidad EAFIT, 2020-06-24) Gómez, Julder; Universidad EAFITMany deliberation problems are multidimensional: the arguments for and against the proposed solutions appeal to values that belong to different dimensions. Thus, for instance, the arguments in favor of the proposal to negotiate to solve the problem of a domestic armed conflict may draw upon peace, whereas the arguments against it may invoke justice. This enables spokespeople to accept the premises of an argument without committing themselves to agreeing to its conclusion and justifying such an argument by emphasizing the premises of the opposing argument. “Yes, a negotiation would reduce the number of deaths caused by political violence, but it would also lead to impunity; therefore, we should not negotiate.” If this situation were indomitable, the deliberation arguments could never be valid; they could never be such to the extent that the acceptance of the premises would force whoever accepts them to agree to the conclusions. In this paper, some of the answers to this problem are considered: the answers of Kock (2009), Govier (2010), and Olmos (2016) as well as the response of Macagno and Walton (2018). Furthermore, several issues found in these answers are pointed out, and in an attempt to provide a solution, a distinction is made between the cases wherein it is possible and those wherein it is impossible to overcome the problem of deliberation multidimensionality.