Publication: Maniobras argumentativas insidiosas en el discurso público: cómo nodefender una dictadura.
Authors
López, Federico E.
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
ACEP. Ateneo de Estudios Políticos.
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
Este artículo se propone analizar un fenómeno extendido en el discurso público, a saber, la proliferación de una serie de movidas argumentativas desplegadas por diferentes agentes que disputan sentido en la arena pública y que tienen un carácter insidioso. Tal carácter, que será explicado mediante un conjunto de herramientas teóricas tomadas de la teoría de la argumentación, la epistemología política y la filosofía del lenguaje, reside en que, bajo una apariencia inofensiva, bajo la apariencia de ser apenas un ejercicio de la razón, producen en verdad un daño epistémico. El daño implicado en estas estrategias será comprendido como la destrucción de algunos recursos epistémicos comunes que se produce al manipular las reglas de la discusión, naturalizando una cierta forma de irresponsabilidad epistémica. A efectos de ilustrar este fenómeno se ofrecerá el análisis de un caso tomado de la arena de discusión pública en Argentina, a saber, la insidiosa forma de no-defender una dictadura desplegada por una candidata a la vicepresidencia en dicho país.
Abstract: This article addresses a widespread phenomenon in public discourse, namely, the proliferation of a series of argumentative moves deployed by different agents who dispute meaning in the public arena and which have an insidious character. Such character, which will be explained using theoretical tools taken from argumentation theory, political epistemology, and the philosophy of language, lies in the fact that under an inoffensive appearance, under the impression of being merely an exercise of reason, they produce epistemic harm. The harm implied in these strategies will be understood as destroying some common epistemic resources produced by manipulating discussion rules and naturalizing a certain form of epistemic irresponsibility. To illustrate this phenomenon, the analysis of a case taken from the public discussion arena in Argentina will be offered, namely, the insidious way of not-defending a dictatorship deployed by a vice-presidential candidate in that country.
Abstract: This article addresses a widespread phenomenon in public discourse, namely, the proliferation of a series of argumentative moves deployed by different agents who dispute meaning in the public arena and which have an insidious character. Such character, which will be explained using theoretical tools taken from argumentation theory, political epistemology, and the philosophy of language, lies in the fact that under an inoffensive appearance, under the impression of being merely an exercise of reason, they produce epistemic harm. The harm implied in these strategies will be understood as destroying some common epistemic resources produced by manipulating discussion rules and naturalizing a certain form of epistemic irresponsibility. To illustrate this phenomenon, the analysis of a case taken from the public discussion arena in Argentina will be offered, namely, the insidious way of not-defending a dictatorship deployed by a vice-presidential candidate in that country.
publication.page.subject
Citation
Pensamiento al margen, n. 22, 2025, p. 81-101.
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/