What is practical argumentation?
Main Article Content
Keywords
Practical argumentation, reasoning, argumentation in social sciences, reasons for action
Abstract
The subject of this text is the concept of practical argumentation, which can be defined as reasoning in social contexts that focuses on selecting an action to solve a practical problem. To develop this definition, I proceed as follows: First, I consider the main interest of the question, what is practical argumentation? Second, I present three important answers to this question and the critics to the first two of them. Third, I add a critic to the third answer and with this, I state the problem of the definition of practical argumentation. Fourth, I present as a thesis that practical argumentation is favorable or contradictory argumentation to a decision. Fifth, I state the difference between practical argumentation from both the agent and the observer of the action on one hand, and on the other, I point out the difference between practical argumentation and soliloquy before practical problems. Finally, I provide a recount of the text progression towards a definition of practical argumentation as a conclusion.
Downloads
References
Anscombe, E. (1991). Intención. Barcelona: Paidós.
Aristóteles. (1998). Ética Nicomáquea. Ética Eudemia. Madrid: Gredos.
Aristóteles. (2000). Partes de los animales. Marcha de los animales. Movimiento de los animales (Trads. E. J. Sánchez-Escariche y A. A. Miguel). Madrid: Gredos.
Aristóteles. (2011). Metafísica. Madrid: Gredos.
Audi, R. (2005). Practical Reasoning and Ethical Decision (1st. ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Audi, R. (2015). Reasons, Rights, and Values (1st. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Binkley, R. (1965). A Theory of Practical Reason. Philosophical Review, 74(4), 423-448.
Bratman, M. E. (1999). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Florence: Taylor and Francis.
Ford, A. (2011). Action and Generality. In Essays on Anscombe’s Intention (pp. 76-105). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Harman, G. (1976). Practical Reasoning. The Review of Metaphysics, 29(3), 431-463.
Hughes, J. (1984). Group Speech Acts. Linguistics and Philosophy, 7(4), 379-395.
Kock, C. (2009). Choice is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation. Argumentation, 23(1), 61-80.
Perelman, C. y Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1989). Tratado de la argumentación: la nueva retórica. Madrid: Gredos.
Raz, J. (Ed.). (1979). Practical Reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schopenhauer, A. (1998). De la cuádruple raíz del principio de razón suficiente (1ª reimpresión). Madrid: Gredos.
Searle, J. R. (2003). Rationality in Action. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: the structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tindale, C. W. (2015). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (2007). Los usos de la argumentación. Barcelona: Península.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (2011). Una teoría sistemática de la argumentación. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
Van Eemeren, F. H. y Grootendorst, R. (2013). Los actos de habla en las discusiones argumentativas. Santiago de Chile: Universidad Diego Portales.
Velleman, J. D. (1996). The Possibility of Practical Reason. Ethics, 106(4), 694-726.
Velleman, J. D. (1997). How To Share An Intention. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57(1), 29-50. Recuperado de https://doi.org/10.2307/2953776
Von Wright, G. H. (1972). On So-Called Practical Inference. Acta Sociologica, 15(1), 39-53.
Walton, D. (1990). What is Reasoning? What is an Argument? Journal of Philosophy, 87(8), 399-419.
Walton, D. (2015). Goal-based Reasoning for Argumentation (1st. edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes (1st. ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
Julder Gómez, Universidad EAFIT
Profesor del Departamento de Humanidades de la Universidad EAFIT.
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Avisos:
- No tiene que cumplir con la licencia para elementos del material de dominio público o cuando su uso esté permitido por una excepción o limitación aplicable .
- No se dan garantías. Es posible que la licencia no le otorgue todos los permisos necesarios para el uso previsto. Por ejemplo, otros derechos como la publicidad, la privacidad o los derechos morales pueden limitar la forma en que utiliza el material.
