PDF
FLIP
Fecha Publicación: 2012-07-01
Cómo citar
Gómez, J. A. (2012). El campo de la argumentación esencialmente polémica. Discusiones Filosóficas, 13(21), 225–243. Recuperado a partir de https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/discusionesfilosoficas/article/view/681
Más formatos de cita
Autores/as
Resumen
Este artículo hace parte de un proyecto de investigación que busca determinar una clase de desacuerdos comprensible como un campo de argumentación que no se produce porque haya malentendidos, sino por la naturaleza de algunos fenómenos sociales. Este artículo se aproxima a ese campo mediante la noción de los conceptos esencialmente polémicos (Gallie) y arguye que se puede comprender satisfactoriamente, siguiendo la retórica clásica, como un campo constituido por una clase de cuestiones de definición. Para ello se disponen dos partes, en la primera, se exponen la noción de concepto esencialmente polémico de Gallie y algunas notas de la recepción de su propuesta; en la segunda parte, se expone la noción de campo de argumentación, el debate en torno al modo en que los campos de argumentación pueden ser comprendidos y la cuestión de cómo entender el campo de argumentación relativo a los conceptos esencialmente polémicos.
Palabras clave:
Citas
Abbey, Ruth. “Is liberalism now an essentially contested concept?” New Political Science. Dec. 2005: 461-480. Print.
Aristóteles. Retórica. Madrid: Gredos, 1990. Impreso.
Collier, David, Fernando Daniel Hidalgo, and Andra Olivia Maciuceanu. “Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications”. Journal of Political Ideologies. Oct. 2006: 211-246. Print.
Connelly, Steve. “Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept”. Local Environment. Jun. 2007: 259-278. Print.
Connolly, William. The terms of political discourse. 3rd ed. London: WileyBlackwell, 1993. Print.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Verdad y método II. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2004. Impreso.
Gallie, Walter Bryce. Conceptos esencialmente impugnados. Vol. 49. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas de la UNAM, 1998. Impreso.
Grafstein, Robert. “A realist foundation for essentially contested political concepts”. The Western Political Quarterly. Mar. 1988: 9-28. Print.
Gray, John. “On liberty, liberalism and essential contestability”. British Journal of Political Science. Oct. 1978: 385-402. Print.
Hamilton, Richard Paul. “Love as a contested concept.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. Sep. 2006: 239-254. Print.
Hurley, S. L. Natural reasons: Personality and polity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Print.
Klumpp, James. “A dramatistic approach to fields”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
Lakoff, George. The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-Century American politics with an 18th-Century brain. New York: Viking Adult, 2008. Print.
Lausberg, Heinrich. Manual de retórica literaria Tomo I. Madrid: Gredos, 1976. Impreso.
Lukes, Steven. El poder: un enfoque radical. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España, 1985. Impreso.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. “The essential contestability of some social concepts”. Ethics. Oct. 1973: 1-9. Print.
Mason, Andrew. “Justice, contestability, and conceptions of the Good”. Utilitas. Nov. 1996: 295-305. Print.
McKerrow, R. E. “Argument communities”. Trapp, R. and J. Schuetz (ed.). Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede. Illinois: IDEBATE Press, 2006. Print.
---. “On fields and rational enterprises: A Reply to Willard”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
Miller, D. “Linguistic philosophy and political theory”. Miller, D. and L. Siedentop (ed.). The nature of political theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Impreso.
Moten, Abdul. “Understanding terrorism: Contested concept, conflicting perspectives and shattering consequences”. Intellectual Discourse. Jan. 2010: 35-63. Online.
Reitan, Eric. “Rape as an essentially contested concept”. Hypatia. May. 2001: 43-66. Print.
Rowland, Robert. “Argument fields”. Benoit, William L., Hample, Dale and Pamela J. Benoit. Readings in argumentation. New York: Foris Publ., 1992. Print.
---. “Purpose, argument fields, and theoretical justification”. Argumentation. May. 2008: 235-250. Print.
Toulmin, Stephen. Los usos de la argumentación. Barcelona: Peninsula, 2007. Impreso.
Waldron, Jeremy. “Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)?” Law and Philosophy. Mar. 2002: 137-164. Print.
Willard, Arthur. “Field theory: A cartesian meditation”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
---. “Some questions about Toulmi’s view of argument fields”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
Aristóteles. Retórica. Madrid: Gredos, 1990. Impreso.
Collier, David, Fernando Daniel Hidalgo, and Andra Olivia Maciuceanu. “Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications”. Journal of Political Ideologies. Oct. 2006: 211-246. Print.
Connelly, Steve. “Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept”. Local Environment. Jun. 2007: 259-278. Print.
Connolly, William. The terms of political discourse. 3rd ed. London: WileyBlackwell, 1993. Print.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Verdad y método II. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2004. Impreso.
Gallie, Walter Bryce. Conceptos esencialmente impugnados. Vol. 49. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas de la UNAM, 1998. Impreso.
Grafstein, Robert. “A realist foundation for essentially contested political concepts”. The Western Political Quarterly. Mar. 1988: 9-28. Print.
Gray, John. “On liberty, liberalism and essential contestability”. British Journal of Political Science. Oct. 1978: 385-402. Print.
Hamilton, Richard Paul. “Love as a contested concept.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. Sep. 2006: 239-254. Print.
Hurley, S. L. Natural reasons: Personality and polity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Print.
Klumpp, James. “A dramatistic approach to fields”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
Lakoff, George. The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-Century American politics with an 18th-Century brain. New York: Viking Adult, 2008. Print.
Lausberg, Heinrich. Manual de retórica literaria Tomo I. Madrid: Gredos, 1976. Impreso.
Lukes, Steven. El poder: un enfoque radical. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España, 1985. Impreso.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. “The essential contestability of some social concepts”. Ethics. Oct. 1973: 1-9. Print.
Mason, Andrew. “Justice, contestability, and conceptions of the Good”. Utilitas. Nov. 1996: 295-305. Print.
McKerrow, R. E. “Argument communities”. Trapp, R. and J. Schuetz (ed.). Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede. Illinois: IDEBATE Press, 2006. Print.
---. “On fields and rational enterprises: A Reply to Willard”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
Miller, D. “Linguistic philosophy and political theory”. Miller, D. and L. Siedentop (ed.). The nature of political theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Impreso.
Moten, Abdul. “Understanding terrorism: Contested concept, conflicting perspectives and shattering consequences”. Intellectual Discourse. Jan. 2010: 35-63. Online.
Reitan, Eric. “Rape as an essentially contested concept”. Hypatia. May. 2001: 43-66. Print.
Rowland, Robert. “Argument fields”. Benoit, William L., Hample, Dale and Pamela J. Benoit. Readings in argumentation. New York: Foris Publ., 1992. Print.
---. “Purpose, argument fields, and theoretical justification”. Argumentation. May. 2008: 235-250. Print.
Toulmin, Stephen. Los usos de la argumentación. Barcelona: Peninsula, 2007. Impreso.
Waldron, Jeremy. “Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)?” Law and Philosophy. Mar. 2002: 137-164. Print.
Willard, Arthur. “Field theory: A cartesian meditation”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
---. “Some questions about Toulmi’s view of argument fields”. Ziegelmueller, G. and J. Rhodes (eds.). Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Utah: Speech Communication Association, 1981. Print.
