Variaciones sobre la deliberación

  1. Vega Reñón, Luis 1
  1. 1 UNED, Madrid
Revista:
Dilemata

ISSN: 1989-7022

Año de publicación: 2016

Título del ejemplar: PolíTICa: Redes, Deliberación y Heurísticas Sociales

Número: 22

Páginas: 203-230

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Dilemata

Resumen

Our idea of deliberation is a complex construction where different traditions and points of view have flocked together. Moreover, its historical development has had some defining moments, among which, I think, three stand out: (i) the ancient foundational moment; (ii) the modern contribution of the “balance of Reason” ideal; and (iii) the current take-off of deliberative proposals and programs in the social-institutional framework of public discourse. This paper aims to review and comment on some relevant variations about the deliberation (namely rhetoric, prudential, weighting and public deliberation) by reference to those traditions and following these moments.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abizadeh, Arash (2002): The passions on the wise: Phrónesis, rhetoric, and Aristotle’s passionate practical deliberation. The Review of Metaphysics, 56/2: pp. 267-296
  • Belzer, Marvin (1987): A logic of deliberation. Procds. 5th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’86 Philadelphia. Merlo Park (CA): AAAI Press, I: pp. 38-43;
  • Blair, Anthony & Johnson, Ralph H. (eds.) (2011): Conductive arguments. An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning, London, College Publications
  • Bohman, James y Rehg, William (eds.) (1997): Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, Cambridge (MA), The MIT Press
  • Bohman, James (1998): The coming of age of deliberative democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6/4: pp. 139-150
  • Dascal, Marcelo (1996): “La balanza de la razón”, en O. Nudler (comp.): La racionalidad: su poder y sus límites, Buenos Aires, Paidós, 1996, pp. 363-381.
  • Dascal, Marcelo (ed.), (2006) G.W. Leibniz, The art of controversies, Dordrecht, Springer; Introductory essay, pp. xxxix-xl.
  • Font, Joan, Sara Pasadas y Graham Smith (2016): Traking the impact of proposals from participatory processes. Methodological challenges and substantive lessons. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12/1: pp. 1-25
  • Gripsrud, Jostein et al. (eds.) (2011): The public sphere, London, Sage, 4 vols.
  • Hitchcock, David, Peter McBurney y Simon Parsons (2001): A framework for deliberation dialogues. Procds. 4th Biennial Conference OSSA. Windsor (Ontario) <www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd.htm>
  • Leibniz, Nuevos ensayos sobre el entendimiento humano (1703-1704, publicados en 1765), edic. de J. Echeverría. Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1983; 4.16.9, p. 565.
  • Lucas, Javier de (ed.) (1991): Castillon-Becker-Condillac. ¿Es conveniente engañar al pueblo? Madrid, Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
  • Manosevitch, Idit (2014): The design of online deliberation: Implications for practice, theory and democratic citizenship. Journal of Public Deliberation, 10/1: pp. 1-4, edic. digital.
  • Marraud, Hubert, “La lógica del discurso civil”, en H. Marraud y P. Olmos (eds.) (2015): De la demostración a la argumentación. Ensayos en honor de Luis Vega, Madrid, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM-Ediciones), pp. 163-178.
  • Parmentier, Marc “Concepts juridiques et probabilistes chez Lebiniz”, Revue d’Histoire des Sciences, XLVI/4 (1993), pp. 439-485.
  • Pincock, Heather (2012): “Does deliberation make better citizens?”, en: T. Nabatchi et al. (eds.) Democracy in motion. Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 135-162.
  • Sánchez Sanz, José (1989), Retórica a Alejandro. Salamanca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Salamanca; pp. 47-48.
  • Steffensmeier, Timothy (2008): Argument quality in public deliberations-Report. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45/1: pp. 1-17.
  • Tuomela, R. (2007): The Philosophy of Sociality. The shared point of view, Oxford / New York, Oxford University Press
  • Vega, Luis (2009): “La deliberación: un campo de prueba del discurso público”, en A. Gimate-Welsh y J. Haidar (coords.) (2013): La Argumentación. Ensayos de análisis de textos verbales y visuales, México, UAM-Iztapalapa, 123-152.
  • Vega Reñón, L. (2014): La teoría de la argumentación y el discurso práctico: ideas para una lógica civil. Laguna, 34: pp. 95-118.
  • Vega, Luis (2015), Introducción a la teoría de la argumentación. Problemas y perspectivas. Lima: Palestra editores, cap. 2.
  • Walton, Douglas N. (2004): “Criteria of rationality for evaluating democratic public rhetoric”, en B. Fontana, C.J. Nederman and G. Reimer (eds.): Talking democracy, University Park PA., Pennsylvania State Press, pp. 295-330
  • Walton, Douglas N. (2006): How to make and defend a proposal in deliberation dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 14: pp. 117-239.
  • Yack, Bernard (2006): Rhetoric and public reasoning. An Aristotelian understanding of political deliberation. Political Theory, 34/4: pp. 417-438.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet