Scarica Prima parte esame philosophy of law e più Appunti in PDF di Filosofia del Diritto solo su Docsity! X "PHILOSOPHY OF LAW, PoL, (Tomasi) Why do we study philosophy of law? Norberto Bobbio (Italian philosopher) recognizes two types of philosophy of law, depending on the subjects that studied it:  Philosophy of law of the philosophers: transferring philosophical and abstract thesis in the field of law, therefore not starting from legal experiences, creating a fracture between theory and practice.  Jurists, defended by Bobbio, are not less than philosophers, the theoretical construction is a result of practice and experience. It’s a reflection on the methods that aims to better understand the law using tools of legal procedure, taking into account speeches of jurists, describing and discussing them. Black box. In almost every field it’s possible to use something without knowing its components (Ex: we are able to drive even without knowing the structure of the engine) but it doesn’t worl like that in the legal framework. The aim of PoL is to create jurists that are free to think, reflect, act and solve, being responsible since they are ware of what’s inside the box Jurists need to know what is making up the law they have to enforce, thay can’t just stop at how to apply it. Their approach is skeptic, it’s naturally critical, they need to reflect on the theoretical background and proceed with deep research. EXAMPLE N°1 Ex: comparison between two situations: 1. A car suddenly accelerates at the highway exit and drives off without paying the toll. 2. Not paying at the restaurant They may look completely different, and the perception we have of them for sure changes (1 st case it’s very disruptive, it looks like it’s against the collectivity, it may be dangerous even) but the good jurists must be able to understand which rule apply to this cases, that is the same: Italian Criminal Code art. 641 regulating the so called “insolvenza fraudolenta” Ryle introduces the distinction between  Knowing  Knowing how Knowing is not enough when it comes to real cases or situations, ex: climber: he may be well prepared in the gym, but when it comes to real mountain walls he needs something more. Not all rules are legal rules. This example shows us how our life takes place within a network of rules, that have different origin (social, moral, prudential, technical, legal) EXAMPLE N°2 Mr. Mario Rossi's day (identity) Mr. Mario Rossi gets up early in the morning; he has a rich breakfast with his wife and children and leaves the house. He does not know whether to take the umbrella with him, because the sky is grey and threatens to rain (natural laws). He meets a neighbor at the door of the house, greets him (social norm), then goes to the newsstand where he stops to buy the newspaper. He takes the tram. He arrives on time at the bank, where he works, despite having stopped, as always, for a moment, in the church (religious norm) under the office. He is a bank official. At lunch break he plays a game of chess (requires technical rules) with the accountant Neri, suffering a defeat. He argues with Mr. Bianchi about political corruption (debate on whether it involves legal or social rules) . When he returns in the afternoon, he finds the manager angry because he parked the car on the pedestrian crossing and got a fine (legal rule). Rossi wonders if a loan should be granted to a customer. In order to study the matter better, he orders his subordinate to bring him the file and provide him with information. He concludes that, even if it would be right to grant a loan as a deserving person, it is necessary to stay away from it for reasons of prudence. If not, the bank is very likely to lose out. Evening arrives. Mr. Rossi returns home. His wife has invited the Verdi family at home. They are all at the table. Rossi is horrified to see that the youngest son of the Verdi does not clean his mouth before drinking and uses the bread to soak up sauce. He thinks to himself: "I have to be patient. I can't openly scold him. Offending guests is not nice (Social norm). Furthermore, Mr. Verdi is touchy." When the guests have left, Rossi's wife helps him to put the dishes in the new dishwasher and together they study the instructions for use (involves technical rules) The day was long: Mrs and Mr Rossi go to bed satisfied. How do we distinguish between rules that are not legally binding and legal rules? Well it’s not a matter of content but of structure and criteria. In the history of legal thought there are some recurring elements: 1. Externality: a rule is considered legal because it deals with human actions and not their beliefs and conscience. 2. Heteronomy: rules are established by external authority 3. Coactivity: coercion, obligation and therefore a sanction. Coactivity is related to the content of the norm and it’s not a necessary expression of a legal rule, coercion doesn’t define it and it’s not necessary for a rule to be legal. EXAMPLE N°3 Ex: “The child must respect the parents” there is formal legal rule that cites “the duties of the child in respects of the parents”, it doesn’t mention coercion, but it’s still legal. We can imagine the legal world as a wall and rules are its bricks, they may have different qualities, but they are bricks and they exist as long as they belong to a legal system, contents may differ but what is fundamental is their place and criteria in the legal system. Evaluation Criteria of a legal rule (by C. Luzzati):  Validity, a rule it’s valid if it has been produced by competent authorities following procedures.  Efficacy, a law is effective when it is respected by citizens and enforced by the courts.  Justice, a law is the response to a higher value. These criteria all have their area of legitimacy, problems arise when they interact and combinate. In the history of legal thought there are 3 main theories:  Natural law, reductionist theory, reduces validity to justice  Legal realism, reduces validity to efficacy  Legal positivism, validity, justice, and efficacy are independent and never reducible. Natural Law, reductionist theory. EXAMPLE N°4  Saint Augustine: “If Justice is not respected, what are the States if not large bands of thieves (magna latrocinia)? Because even the bands of thieves, what are they if not small states? It is still a group of individuals that is governed by the command of a leader, is bound by a social pact and the booty is divided according to the law of the convention. If the evil gang increases with the addition of perverse men, so much so that it possesses territories, establishes residences, occupies cities, subdues peoples, takes the name of State and is now granted to it in reality, not by the diminution of the ambition of possess, but from greater security of impunity. With finesse and truth a captured pirate answered Alexander the Great in this sense. The king asked him what idea he had to haunt the sea. And the pirate replied: “The same idea that came to you to infest the whole world; but I am considered a pirate because I do it with a small ship, you a leader because you do it with a large fleet". He makes a Nature of law EXAMPLE N°6 «X is a sovereign, federal, and unjust republic» imagine a State whose Constitution in its first article declines X as a sovereign, federal and unjust republic. Would any kind of legal norm that is deliberately declared unjust be accepted? Of course, not  by necessity every kind of legal claims to correctness. «Individual legal norms and individual legal decisions as well legal systems necessarily lay claim to correctness» (R. Alexy, Law’s Dual Nature, in Rivista di filosofia del diritto, 239). “Law is a set of norms - that is, of rules, principles and normative arguments - that claims to be correct: a norm that was not able to satisfy fundamental requirements of justice, which represented a case of intolerable injustice, would be defective” (M. La Torre, ibid., p. 236) Inclusive legal positivism: legal systems must pretend justice to avoid the rejection of legal rule. «Therefore the jurist, without some understanding of what is just, or what is unjust, and intolerably such, remains without orientation. […] The law cannot be stopped in the face of the non-cognitivist and Pilatesque ( he made the question but didn’t look for an answer) “Quid est veritas?”. On that quid one must rack his brain, and try to identify an object or a principle. The norm without truth or correctness, the weakest normative truth, is unjustifiable» What is truth? It is impossible to answer in a unique way. Moral judgment may differ. Real judgment, there is no discussion. According to non-cognitivism a real judgment is one we can find an answer that is not a matter of opinion. Every kind of statement implies truth, and you don’t need it when there is an agreement, you go back to truth when it is questioned  disagreement is one of the main features of social relations. Jurists can’t accept the idea of law without questioning truth, without asking about justice. Before WW2 legal positivism affirmed that you could define law without looking at justice. With Nuremberg process the problem rose, because if you can’t question law than it means that you are living in an absolute state, law must be made by truth and not authority (Hobbes: law is created by authority and not truth). Philosophy was born as argumentation.  Arguments: discourses meant to justify and bring reasons in support of one’s claim, but the turning point is that philosophy gives argumentation through reason. Philosophy has been essentially seen as logos, in the word’s great sense, namely not as a mere “discourse”, semantic (exclamation, prayer, order, etc.) or apophantic (statement, assertion, announcement, revelation, observation, discovery, testimony), but as “argumentation”. By “argumentation” I intend a discourse which is not limited to saying how things stand, but which tries to justify, to motivate, to demonstrate what it asserts, to bring reasons, to “account” for itself. It is not a matter of jury, it is impossible to conceive a norm if the idea of truth doesn’t exist. When you are in a philosophical domain you need to bring argumentation in favor of your reasoning, two people discussing a topic through dialectical confutation, trying to prove that the opposite of our point is false. “Truth does not exist”, contradicts itself. Because I am saying that it is true, that truth does not exist, using the same notion I am trying to demolish. Simple example of dialectical confutation looking at the statement itself. Then what is truth? The opposite statement “Truth exists”, it is impossible to deny the existence of truth because to do so you must use the concept of truth, therefore you can’t deny its existence. In the legal domain argumentation has a special shade, in this context you don’t have just two parties discussing an issue, there is a third party, outside the debate, the judge. The third subject doesn’t take part to the debate, they do not want to enforce an opinion, their job is to set clear who is right and who is wrong by looking at the law, they are the most important part. In philosophical argumentation persuasion is from both parties against one another, in a court it’s directed to the judge. The judge doesn’t play the same role of the other two parties, according to modern trial he cannot enter the discussion, he has to external, and approach the issue in a critical way. Legal matters are always practical matters, sooner or later in the legal domain you will meet reality. You need a solution that can be practically applied. The difference between a philosophical analysis and a legal one is here, in the first case we proceed with a theoretical discussion, in the latter we deliberate on a practical problem, coming to a singular conclusion. In the legal domain you wouldn’t discuss on the statement “Truth does not exist” since it’s not practical. Rhetoric We are talking about rhetoric, that could be commonly defined as a type of knowledge that deals with contexts (deliberative, political, and juridical) in which the decision, i.e. the deliberation, depends on a third party; moreover, this third party deliberates on a practical problem, which must be solved. Aristotle: «Rhetoric exists to affect the giving of decisions -- the hearers decide between one political speaker and another, and a legal verdict is a decision -- the orator must not only try to make the argument of his speech demonstrative and worthy of belief; he must also make his own character look right and put his hearers, who are to decide, into the right frame of mind». The philosopher is saying that when in the rhetoric domain every time we look for persuasion, we don’t have to just demonstrate our point, but a good orator must use emotion in his favour, he must make his character look legitimate (ethos) His character plays a huge part in rhetoric, making emotions play in our favour (pathos). For this reason, there is a lot of prejudice. Rhetoric is commonly conceived as the art of persuasion, and this may go against the integrity of truth, if you have persuasion, you can lose track of what is actually true. If the legal domain is a rhetorical one the how can we look for truth? «Rhetoric exists to affect the giving of decisions -- the hearers decide between one political speaker and another, and a legal verdict is a decision -- the orator must not only try to make the argument of his speech demonstrative and worthy of belief; he must also make his own character look right and put his hearers, who are to decide, into the right frame of mind» Rhetoric concerns an ability that belongs – as a matter of principle – to all human beings since to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others (Arist, Rh., Rhetoric is not a repertoire of concepts and means of persuasion, not even just a theory of speaking well, but the way of being of zoon politikon, of human beings as political and linguistic animal, political since linguistic and linguistic since political. Every human being soon or later will act as rhetorician because this is what means living in a society. Rhetoric deals with:  Logos  Ethos, character of the orator  Pathos, emotions of the receiver Nowadays there is a lack of interest in rhetoric, and this probably depends on the persistence of a prejudice against rhetoric, because it is often associated with not telling the truth. Plato believed in a good and bad use of rhetoric, but it may not be sufficient because it leads to an infinite loop on what “good” is and on how to achieve it. Martin Heidegger in the “Basic concept of Aristotelian philosophy” he summed up his study on the opera “Rhetoric”, he saw rhetoric as philosophical matter. To understand it you must look at the human being. The human being is a being that speaks, and the Greeks already saw it as such. The human being is a living thing that has his being there in conversation and discourses. Heidegger affirms that our living and our living there and being there is always together. In rhetoric we have something before us that deals with speaking as a basic mode of the being of being- with-one-another of human beings themselves. What he means is that we always are in relation with others. EXAMPLE N° 7 We are born as human being already in relation with others, our parents. Even someone that cannot speak but is in relation, it is a human being. Rhetoric deals with being ad alterum. One of the basic aims of law is to protect a relation, to protect someone that is not able to speak. The anthropological model, to be together, what society is by nature, is strictly linked with the linguistic part of ourselves. It is a matter of way of being. The possibility of speaking against one another in being with one another is thereby brought about.  it is an ability that belongs to all human beings because we discuss statements, we defend and we attack  disagreement is not something pathological/physiological in our being together, our being together deals with differences, discussions. According to the modern conception of law we need to avoid disputes to make our living in society as peaceful as possible and therefore law, from the modern perspective, is to build up a technique able to solve disputes. Heidegger says that to being in a dispute is by nature connected with our being in society. There is a very deep link between rhetoric, laws, and justice. Everything is ad alterum. Speaking is a public (political) activity, and it is an extralinguistic practice (visual and so on). Pisteis (something we trust, because it is reasonable to do so): means of persuasion we use in the rhetorical domain: The triad speaker, listener, topic is also the basis of the well-known triple-partition of the entechnoi pisteis (means of persuasion embodied in art or “artistic proofs”): ethos, pathos and logos. They are the rhetorical means of persuasion (pisteis) (F. Piazza, Rhetoric as Philosophy of Language.) Each of the three pisteis corresponds to one of the three elements of the triad: the first, ethos, is the proof based “on the character of the speaker”, the second, pathos, consists “in disposing the hearer in some way” and the third, logos, is the “argument itself, by showing or seeming to show something” (Rhetoric 1356a 2-5).  Ethos : character of the speaker, if I cannot trust you then I can’t believe in what you say and therefore it is false. I believe you because what you say is truth or do I believe it is truth because I believe you. There is persuasion (pistis) through character (ethos) whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence... And this should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion than the speaker is a certain kind of person (Arist, Rh. 1365 a 4-13). The ethos Aristotle is referring to in this passage is not the pre-existing reputation of the speaker, but a character constructed “through logos”. Indeed, Aristotle is not saying that the speaker’s credibility makes the speech credible but the inverse; he is stating that the way in which the speech is spoken makes the speaker trustworthy. Therefore, the speaker’s trustworthiness is not a precondition (prerequisite) but an effect that he/she must achieve thanks to his/her speech (F. Piazza, Rhetoric as Philosophy of Language). Again, you need to look at logos, at what is spoken about, this is the only way we have to solve the dilemma. It is logos that will help me understand if you are or not a trustworthy person, truth is always a matter of reason, not a matter of believing and explanation. It means that we must discuss about truth. Rhetoric is always about the contents.  Pathos : disposing the hearer in some way. The more a speech can hold together pleasure and knowledge the more persuasive it will be. Many scholars have a negative view of rhetoric because of its emotional component, a good rhetorical speech is good beyond the truth of the statement, but because it is said in a certain way, provoking emotion in the audience. It is a mistake to separate between the emotional component and the cognitive one, believing that reason and emotions are completely detached. For many centuries we always believed that truth is just a matter of reason and not of emotion. This implies that, in order to be persuasive, we should not separate the emotional component from the cognitive one. In a rhetorical field it is impossible to have knowledge without emotion, because it is a matter of deliberation, that means acting in a certain way in accordance to what believe is truth. You act in a certain way because you feel. The relationship between these two spheres is not an extrinsic juxtaposition but something like a chiasm. According to Aristotle, a speech is persuasive not because it produces knowledge and, in addition, pleasure, but because it is able to produce pleasant knowledge and pleasure that produces knowledge simultaneously (F. Piazza, La Retorica di Aristotele). “Beauty as scientific method”, The idea of a human being divided into two between reason and emotion is based on dualism, and it is false. You cannot have real knowledge in the rhetorical field without also having pleasure. This is very far from the modern idea. Once again, it is just the rhetorical point of view that shows this chiasm between pleasure and knowledge, a chiasm that it is not merely limite\d to persuasive speech in a narrow sense. Indeed, we also find it in the famous Aristotelian description of the human being as “desiderative reason” or “rational desire” (Arisit., Nic. Et. 1139b 4-5). In an entirely general way, [pathos] is characteristic of a disposition of human beings, a how of being-in- the-world (M. Heidegger, Basic Concepts.., p. 264) Emotion is often believed to be as a matter of reaction, what we see/hear produces a reaction in us, it’s a matter of a certain psychological sphere. It is how the World is in us. Pathos is more about how the world is in us, and so the way we are in the world. Our emotional reaction is how the World is in us, and therefore how we are in the World, how we act in it. Visual and multimodal argumentation are nowadays a key component in argumentation. The manner and mode in which we are in a frame of mind also constitutes how we stand with respect to the matters, how we see them, how extensively and in what respect. Coming out of one definite frame of mind into another relates primarily to the mode of taking a position toward the world, of being in the world (ibid. p. 259).  Logos : The philosophical fruitfulness of rhetorical thought (as well as its orientation towards the outside) also emerges if we take into account the third rhetorical pistis corresponding to “what is said” and consisting in the “argument (logos, speech) itself, by showing or seeming to show something” (Arist., Rh. 1356a 2-5). “What is said” is the key to every speech. In particular, the Aristotelian treatment of this pistis allows us to shed light on the complex relationship between rhetoric and truth… by itself truth immediately deals with what is said, the discourses. The practical aim of rhetorical discourse does not imply indifference or disregard for truth. Persuading someone of something, namely convincing the hearers to change their minds and to act accordingly, cannot do without truth. Of course, the rhetorical point of view on truth is different from that of a logician or a scientist (F. Piazza, Rhetoric as Philosophy of Language). The truth rhetoric is dealing with- is never a universal and necessary truth but always a contingent and fallible one. Because it is a matter of deliberations and opinions. This feature is strictly dependent on the nature of the rhetorical issues that are, using an Aristotelian terminology, issues that can be otherwise and have a for the most part regularity. These are those things that precisely because of their nature (and not only because of our cognitive limits) cannot be a subject of a stable and ultimate knowledge. The issues at stake in rhetorical discourses are, by definition, issues on which there is no agreement: the truth we are dealing with is, by definition, a precarious one, it is a truth always exposed to failure (F. Piazza, Rhetoric as Philosophy of Language). 13/10 Truth in itself is something that can be discussed. Absolute truth: Many consider absolute  Anything that is not up to discussion, but how can we say that something is true without discussing it, by definition is not truth, because to demonstrate that is absolute I would discuss it to prove my theory. wrong  Everything that when discussed it’s impossible to deny: Ex: “Truth doesn’t exist” it is impossible to deny the existence truth, since you stand by a statement, that is indeed true, you are using truth, and therefore it is undeniable, and we must accept that it exists. Truth is not about fact. There must be traced a distinction between event and fact. Fact: true description of an event. EXAMPLE N°8 “This bottle is blue”  fact The bottle being blue event Truth only deals with discourses, with a proposition. Proposition: meaning of a sentence. We can have different statements ( piove | it’s raining) but same meaning. “A proposition is an affirmative or negative expression that says something is something” Arist. This bottle is blue is a proposition, because it tells me something about the bottle. Which kind of statements? EXAMPLE N°9 Not every kind of statement can be true or false:  Prescriptive statements: close the door  Prayer: please pass me the bottle A descriptive statement (alethic) may be true or false: the door is closed. Law is made of prescriptive statements, that cannot be considered true or false. Close the door, because it’s cold. Reasons behind prescriptive statements can be true or false. We use different states of apophantic statements. We meet different kind of statements: 1. It rains  has alethic value. Depends on the weather 2. Wales are mammals  has alethic value. Depends on science. 3. The door is open or it is closed  it always true, it’s a tautology. Depends on logic. 4. To kill is evil  it is not a good example of truth because it depends. Popper’s focus is on truth, but truth is not a thing. The problem we face is that we need to know reality. We need to look at reality, otherwise my statement is pointless. Because it’s what makes a statement truth, first of all we need to search for reality. By itself an apophantic statement can be both true or false, we need reality. Truth is not a thing. Popper argued that there is truth in itself, which is inherently unattainable, despite the fact that subsequent theories come ever closer to it in an infinitely asymptotic process. The misunderstanding here lies in having made truth a thing, so that the cognitive enterprise is not a process that tends to know reality but the truth. Now, while there is nothing strange in affirming that enterprise of knowing reality can be an ideally infinite task, at the same time it seems absurd to declare that we are sure to get closer to the truth even if we do not have the possibility to consider the knowledge of reality as a term of comparison, to ascertain if we have really come closer to it. What we do in a trial is to look for evidence to reach a conclusion, and they are about reality. We need to look at reality, beyond the reasons that support what we think because we can be wrong, we must search for it and know reality. We can be wrong when judging reality, for sure our knowledge of reality can be. Reality is external from my discourses. ALETHIC REALISM The best theory about truth we have is alethic realism. A statement is true if what the statement says to be the case actually is the case: there must be something that makes the proposition true. Is based on the idea that some portion of reality makes the proposition true. The truth of a proposition is given by how it relates to the world. Discuotation: “p” is true if and only if p A statement is true only if what is stated is true. We have a mutual relation between language and reality, when we speak, we always speak of something. This gives a relational version of truth, but it is not a version of relativism about truth. Discovery of truth. Aletheia always suggests us that to know the truth you need to keep looking, because you can start from a true statement and yet continue looking for knowledge. Our knowledge of reality can change. ùTruth is the discourse that says how things stands (Aristotle) Falsehood consists in saying of that which is that is not, or of that which is not that it is. Truth consists in saying of that which is that it is, or of that which is not that it is not. (Aristotle) “poltrona rossa”  La poltrona è blu  La poltrona non è rossa Subjects are always part of knowledge, observers are always part of the observation, and part of the truth. Des Cartes: dualistic conception of knowledge A discourse is true when it says how things stand, it doesn’t contradict reality. When the relation is of contradiction than the statement is false. Why do we need to accept alethic realism? Why is it really true that contradiction makes a discourse false?  There is no being outside thought: there is no identity between the teo, but the being is included in thought.  Thought is not external to being: every thought always is thought of something  So, there is not external “does a pink elephant exist?” Yes because I am talking about it, because I can imagine it,. Principle of non-contradiction: bebaiothetos, the most certain of all principles (Aristotle) It Is contained in the Metaphysics, where he is speaking of reasoning (logical value) and of being (ontological value). It’s the most certain principle since everything depends on it and it cannot be denied.  Logical value: “the most certain of all basics principles (bebaiothetos) is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously”.  Ontological value: reality in connection with our discourses. It is impossible that the same attribute belongs and at the same time does not belong to the same reality on the basis of the same criterion and that therefore contradictory characteristics can be predicated of the same entity. Why is it undeniable? By itself the principle it needs to be certain. The undeniability is Denying the principle means that “the most certain of basic principles” is that “contradictory propositions can be true simultaneously” this implies that what I say can be at the same time true and false, and that the same time it is true, and it is not true that the principle of non-contradiction that is false , but you don’t want it to be true and false at the same time. If you want to deny it you need to use it, without it you have an infinite regression. 19/10 Truth is a relation, it is not a thing. We need to search for reality. It is impossible to demonstrate the undeniability of the principle, we need to recognize that it is undeniable. To demonstrate means we should use another principle, elenkos show us that we do not need anything else to prove the undeniability, it is proven by the principle itself. First we tried to deny the definition of the principle of non-contradiction given by Aristotle. How can the principle be bebaiothetos because of the definition given by Aristotle? Someone must want to deny it. Elenkos is acceptable until we accept the definition given by Aristotle, why am I obliged to accept his definition? If the definition changes I do not have to accept it. The logical value of the principle of non contradiction is not its only value.  Ontological value: reality in connection with our discourses. It is impossible that the same attribute belongs and at the same time does not belong to the same reality on the basis of the same criterion and that therefore contradictory characteristics can be predicated of the same entity. Aristotle is talking about the relation between language and reality, the very deep essence of each discourse. The main feature of each type of discourse is “speaking of something”: it is a sentence/set of sentences about something. Every thought is always thought of something. Those who are preparing to discuss with each other: in fact, if this is not achieved, how will commonality of a discourse then be possible? It would be impossible. There is “speech” only when the speaker designates something in a valid way and for himself and others: which is necessary when something is said. We need someone that speaks. Otherwise, it would not be possible a discourse. Whoever wants to deny the validity of the principle of non-contradiction must utter any speech, that is, he must designate something in a way that is valid for himself and others. But in doing so, he will be obliged to use the very principle of which he intended to deny the validity. Indeed the act of designating implies in an y case that the related object is something specific, that is to say, defined with respect to everything that is distinct from it. There needs to a unilateral relation between what I say and the reality I am talking about. Deontological value: there must be univocal relation between language and reality. We need to designate a thing in a unilateral way. Who takes part to a discourse must be sure that there is understanding on what is discussed. To speak means to speak about something. A discourse being a discourse needs to be a discourse of something that is univocal between language and reality. Truth depends on what we are discussing about. Relativism makes reality dependent; we move from the alethic value of a statement to different reality. To say that a statement is true depends on reality. It would be impossible to live in a World where everyone lives in its own world. We must live together in a society, and that is not possible if everyone has their own reality, it is unacceptable. Is it coherent by itself? I assume the absolute existence of ourselves and of A reality. The original idea of relativism was to define truth only relative to people and their points of view. We then discovered that the relativity of truth implied the relativity of reality. But relativism does not allow for the absolute existence of anything, not even people and points of view. 1. Assume all the truth is relative to references of the asserters of the truth: of S asserts p then p is true only relative to the interests of S. 2. By disquotation, if truth is relative, then reality is relative. 3. If reality is relative, it is relative to the existence of people and preferences. 4. But if everything is relative, then the existence of people and preferences must itself be relative. A consistent relativism makes it impossible to state anything, because there is no end, there is indeed a vicious infinite regress of relativisms to relativisms. The way out of this, that is an implicit in the first person point of view of the relativist, is to insist that the relativism terminates in its existence and preferences. But then that is a form of solipsism, because everyone else exists only relative to his existence. Solipsism: everything exists from my point of view, this means that I will accept your point of view until I want. It is not a good way to promote dialogue. The only way to escape relativism is to look at reality, and we may have different views of reality. Truth is by definition based on discussion. You can still believe something that is wrong (Melvin: Whales are fishes. WRONG Wales have always been mammals even if it wasn’t acknowledged) THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO KNOW REALITY. Reality does not depend from my point of view, my point of view depends on reality. EPISTEMICISM: by “true” epistemicists intend to mean “what is held true”: “a proposition “p” is true if and only if p is justified” It actually rules out many inferences, especially in condition of ignorance and uncertainty. “I should not say that p is true if I do not have strong reasons to say so; and if I have justifying reasons for p then I can say that p is true” BUT THE REALM OF IGNORANCE IS TOO VAST. EXAMPLE N°17 Suppose that I do not know my neighbor so well. I can say that “my neighbor is a criminal” is not true, as I don’t have any justifying reason to assert it. Is it always appliable? “my neighbor is a nice person” I don’t know if it is justified and then it is not true. But If a proposition is not true then it’s negation is true, and it also justified that is not true. The argument not only expresses the typical paranoid attitude of the little “petty bourgeoise” who develops homicidal mania towards his neighbor (whom he does not know) , but also expresses a fundamental reason for the most dangerous dogmatism: that type of dogmatism that is strengthened by one’s own, and of others, ignorance (you cannot say that is not, therefore it is so, I tell you)  Inference ad ignorantiam. You need to know reality. In epistecimism reality doesn’t matter, we look at what we believe, ot is a matter of justification. In relativism I make reality my own. But reality is what we share. Everything in the legal domain is under discussion, it is a matter of putting legislation in action, even human rights. If I deny reality what I have is violence. Reality does not depend on us, our knowledge of it does, but we can set disputes by looking at reality. Even in politics, looking at the future, we begin from reality. How can you convince someone of everything? The basic idea of sofists is that I am able to convince you of everything. Rhetoric is the ability to pronounce speeches and guide actions, characterized by the ability to know how to produce consensus on one’s opinion by resulting to the stimulation of passions… The sophists, thanks to speech, believed that they could shape the body of the polis, whatever the starting state, in its individual components and as a whole. It doesn’t matter your point of view, I’ll show you truth and I can teach you the method to do that. Contradiction: it doesn’t exist an absolute truth but it exists a method. In the polis who knows how to handle the speech is able to dominate a force, that of the passions, and thanks to this domination he can intervene to modify the actions of its listeners. Gorgias stated that “a speech that has persuaded a mind, forces the mind that has persuaded to believe in speeches and to consent to facts” . Knowing how to govern and persuade with speeches coincides with knowing how to control facts. The man of the sophists is a puppet of the gods, of chance of necessity, of the strongest, of passions, of irrational nature. He is entirely passive towards the reality that surrounds him and his behavior responds to the stimulus- response pattern. This implies the thematic distinction between a properly human horizon and natural becoming: men and nature are perfectly homogeneous, man is part of nature, indistinct from it. It is governed by the same rule, the stimulus response pattern. Rhetoric promotes another type of man. Aristotle promotes a free man. Free to discuss. Responsibility. Truth and justice are stronger and they are up to us. To be in society means that we are responsible on of each other. Law is the best expression of that, is something which is done in order to take care of the weakest. Sophism Gorgia affirms that he is able to convince anyone of anything, how is that possible? Development of argumentation theory and critical thinking. Arguing as a broad framework. “Arguments are made of sentences”, traditional definition that failed to caption visual images and sounds. Lecture 1. Argumentation theory (informal logic) and visual and multimodal argument (and the “Trento school”) Lecture 2. Looking for and at visual arguments. Lecture 3. Diagrams, KC tables and argument analysis. Methodology. images were proudly taken by American soldiers to show off their rule in Iraq. Those pictures were the proof needed to strengthen the accusation of crimes against humanity. Those described are all visual premises.  Visual conclusions 1. Forensic sketch, 1881. Someone on a train that robbed and stabbed to death a gold dealer. Authorities brought together all the testimonies and put together their versions to come out with a crossed identification (Argument by comparison of verbal premises) 2. Putting together a shredded letter from a terrorist suicide bomber, (Argument from fit and we can see and feel that something fits together). Theory of Continental Derive (Argument from fit) Lecture 2 Ex: packaging as a form of visual argumentation 1. Argument: reasons to purchase that product or to deter from purchasing (cigarettes packaging) 2. Arguments it’s a response to disagreement and an attempt to solve that disagreement, arguments are only possible if there is agreement on most part of the topic from both sides. Lawyers arguing with another share certain acceptance of determinate statements, evidence, way of arguing… Feminist scholars have highlighted how traditional views of argumentation emphasizes too much violence, making it a competitive win lose kind of dialogue. But it’s based on agreements to get to a new one. Ex: Job interview: our way to take part in argumentation since we have to convince a party of our value. It is also full of visual argumentations, like how we are dressed or a possible presentation. Ex: Traffic lights as a sign to cross the road, I inferred that when it turned green it was time to cross the road. Could be both visual and vocal, but the visual one in this case it’s stronger and leads to a certain conclusion. Cases of people that allegedly collaborated with the nazi and committed war crimes. 1st case: Former nazi camp guard, 101 yrs old, given 5 yrs of jail for holocaust war crimes. The Ivan Demjanjuk case: During the 60s and 70s a long series of court cases argued that he collaborated with nazis while being a prisoner in the camps. In the first proceeding if it was discussed that he should have been extradited to Israel. Claims were that he was “Ivan the terrible” a sadist guard that committed atrocities on prisoners. “Exhibit F” in support of his extradition. A former prisoner recognized him from a picture. He was extradited to Israel, where again former prisoners were asked to identify him. One of them unhesitatingly recognized him after making him remove his glasses. There were many testimonies, and did not all agree, but they are making all a visual argument The claim was that the guy in the picture I.D., and this settles that he was there and collaborated.” In the Israeli court the Treblinka camp also produced former ids  argument by comparison/identification Defendants: question its authenticity and request a forensic analysis, they came up with a thesis that it was fraudulent and relied on a political intrigue that involved the kgb. The defense got other cards and requested experts to evaluate their authenticity (argument by comparison) and got to the conclusion that it was not authentic: there two stamps on the card, two holes that probably came from staples holes that proved that the picture was taken from another piece of identification. General scheme of argument: Si S+R i S= one who sees R= one who remembers I= identity à We are talking about an argument by comparison and identification based on memory.  Reliability  Emotionally very strong arguments, we are talking about war crimes. Trials are difficult to face because of their emotional implication. It may make the argument actually less reliable, since people are thirsting for justice and want someone to pay. In the German trial, Nagorny stated that he lived for a prolonged time with I.D. and still did not recognize him as the one he shared his days with. So we have different arguments. Israeli lower court found him guilty. In the judgement of the Israeli Supreme Court the ruling of lower court’s has been rejected because of lack of proofs and evidence He then got sent back to the US, where there had to be a review of the extradition proceedings, later on described as a “witch trial” and influenced by “emotional histeria” he gets his citizenship back Another investigation is opened by the German court, still concerned about collaborators and applies to extradition and it’s allowed it. This time we have a different visual argumentation: use of photographs. Other forms of visual elements: “scars under his armpit that was the result of a tattoo removal”, Nazis usually put tattoos on their prisoners so it could be it. The second time his attorney was requested deportation thet argued that he was now too old and frail to do so, providing a picture of him leaving his house “slack-jawed and unmoving”, but on the other hand another visual argument was brought in contrast, a video showing him alert, talking and walking without assistance. The kind of argument that it’s going on it’s “appeal to pity” (insert picture of him of his first day of trial in Germany in fragile conditions) his look in court brings visual argumentation, and his presence was orchestrated to impress the court in a certain way.  O.J. Simpson trial: he was found not guilty in criminal court. There was all kinds of photographic evidence that showed the murderer as a monster and the defense purposefully aired two good looking people to interact with O.J. Simpson in an affectionate way. If he was a monster than they would have not acted that way. It was not officially brought into court but some stand on the fact that it has influenced the sentence. They needed to create enough indecision. Political cartoons: other side of the pity argument he didn’t show sympathy to the victims of the holocaust then why should we show it to him? Words and images: the complexities of meaning.  Verbal examples: we live in a time when morality is understood in terms of rights, it was not the case before, this means that there are certain words (right, human right, discrimination) that are used on different ways, and in order to understand the argument we have to understand the meaning intended. It’s a matter of definitions.  Visual examples: just like words have meaning images have meanings, ceiled in its details and singular parts that have to be pieced together. “Coat of arms with a skull” by A. Durer. For most of the history of art, art is put together to convey a specific meaning. Visual impressions: Skull: death Wild man: represents nature Woman with a wedding dress and wedding crown Coat of arms: symbols to represent a family, a country… you represent things you can brag about In a typical coat of arm the family is identified in a shield. This is a coat of arms that tells us about death, Durer is trying to make a statement on death. Nature in relationship with the death is its companion since everybody dies, they follow a cycle that inevitably ends in death. Nature is talking with the bride, who has her eyes closed and doesn’t realize she is married to death too power of death, even a fancy and noble bride is going to encounter death, you may have a small span of wealth but it’s not going save you from death. The same it’s going on with the elmeth and the wings that symbolize conquers, you conquer whatever you want, you are still going to be reached by death. Everything that is important to us in life are going to come to an end Memento mori, remember you are going to die, and become part with god so you should focus on death, and not on materialist aspects of life. Durer is talking about death in a completely visual way.  The Nazi swastika: we associate it with ww2 and the Nazis, but it has a much wider meaning, this was a symbol that was appropriated from eastern cultures and used it for propaganda. In India the swastika is a sign of good fortune, luck and peace, and was used in a similar way in north America before the rise of the Nazis, in Ontario a town was called swastika long before ww2 and they were later asked to change it but refused. After Nazi Germany it gained a terrible and negative meaning of course and it opened a huge debate after the war. On one hand it should rehabilitated to its origin meaning of peace. Canadian artist “manwoman” tried to rehabilitate the swasitika  The gentle swastika, negation of the nazi swastika, doves put in a nazi swastika to claim its peaceful meaning.