Institutional Insights for Analysing Strategic Manoeuvring in the British Prime Minister’s Question Time

This paper aims at creating an adequate theoretical basis for a systematic integration of institutional insights into the pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentative exchanges that occur in institutionalised contexts. The argumentative practice of Prime Minister’s Question Time in the British House of Commons is examined, as a case in point, in order to illustrate how the knowledge of the characteristics of an institution, its rules and conventions can be integrated into the pragma-dialectical analysis. The paper highlights the role that theoretical concepts and tools such as strategic manoeuvring, argumentative activity types and dialectical profiles play in this integration.

On ‘the Ethics of Theorizing’ in the Cracked Mirror: Some Comments

Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research - This paper examines the question of the ethics of theorizing with respect to the claim made by the authors that one, there is excessive...     

Strategic Manoeuvring by Dissociation in Corporate Crisis Communication: The Case of the 2017 United Airlines’ Passenger Dragging-Off Incident

Argumentation - Within the research framework of pragma-dialectics, this study analysed and assessed strategic manoeuvring by dissociation in corporate crisis communication, exemplified by the 2017...     

On the aims of medicine: Comments on ‘philosophy of medicine as the source for medical ethics’

Health defined as the psychophysiological capacity to act or respond appropriately in a wide variety of situations, is enhanced by many means other than preventing and treating disease and injury. Therefore no choice of a particular medical intervention is likely to maximize health for all people with (or at risk for) a given disease. As a result, if medical practitioners are to be fully competent in the sense of knowing not only how to perform procedures but when and when not to do so, they must be able to support patients (and those who know and care about them) in weighing all of the many factors which bear upon the decision as to which, if any, medical interventions are likely to improve the person's health.     

Problems with the ‘physical’ in physicalism

Hempel's Dilemma is a challenge that has to be met by any formulation of physicalism that specifies the physical by reference to a particular physical theory. It poses the problem that if one's specification of the physical is ‘current’ physical theory, then the physicalism which depends on it is false because current physics is false; and if the specification of the physical is a future or an ideal physics, the physicalism based on it would be trivial as it would be tautologously true, or because very little (if anything at all) can be inferred from or about a physics that does not yet exist. I review the reasons for thinking that the dilemma is a perpetual problem for currentist specifications of the physical, then introduce the argument that the standard positions on the specification question are wanting because they lack a generality which physicalism is generally accepted to have. I end with a suggestion for a way forward for physicalism.     

Self-reflection on emancipatory education practices with the ‘oppressed’ in community health

North American community health academics encourage the use of emancipatory education for the community development with vulnerable populations. Topics such as critical consciousness-raising, social justice, and political action constitute a significant part of the curricula. They often refer to Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed. However, Freire has too often been presented as quasi-synonymous with a conception of critical education that de-emphasizes the context and ignores the history of his praxis. He has been made into a non-historical creator who invented a fully-formed point of view out of nothing. A self-reflection in Northeast Brazil revealed that Freire’s ideas were rooted in a Brazilian tradition with which he was familiar and which served him as a point of reference, most notably the ideas of Alvaro Vieira Pinto, a Brazilian philosopher, as well as a number of Russian and German populists.     

Al-Ghazali’s Position on the ‘Second Proof’ of the ‘Philosophers’ for the Eternity of the World,in the First Discussion of the Incoherence of the Philosophers

In the Incoherence of the Philosophers, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111) raised objections against the doctrine of the ‘philosophers’ (represented chiefly by al-Farabi and Ibn Sina) on 20 specific points. In the first, and longest discussion, he examines and rebuts four of their proofs of the pre-eternity of the world—that is, that the universe as a whole had no beginning but extends perpetually into the past. Al-Ghazali rejects that doctrine. But his own position on the issue does not become clear until he discusses the philosophers’ ‘second proof.’ In this paper, I will examine the relevant text of the Incoherence of the Philosophers, in order to clarify the nature of Al-Ghazali’s position in relation to the second proof. I will explain why Al-Ghazali cannot adopt what I refer to as the ‘naïve’ theological position, according to which God temporally preceded the world. Instead, Al-Ghazali concurs with the philosophers that time is the measure of motion, but he asserts that time was created with the world, both having a beginning before which there was no time. God, on the other hand, is not temporally prior to the world, but neither is he simultaneous, as the second proof supposes. As timelessly eternal, God bears no temporal relation to the world at all. In conclusion, I describe what I refer to as a naïve philosophical position, which is entailed by the second proof, but distinct from both Al-Ghazali’s position and that adopted by Ibn Rushd in his critique of Al-Ghazali in the Incoherence of the Incoherence. I argue that this naïve philosophical position (and thus, the second proof) is incoherent.     

Comments to ‘logics of public communications’

Take your average publication on the dynamics of knowledge. In one of its first paragraphs you will probably encounter a phrase like “a logic of public announcements was first proposed by Plaza in 1989 (Plaza 1989).” Tracking down this publication seems easy, because googling its title ‘Logics of Public Communications’ takes you straight to Jan Plaza’s website where it is online available in the author’s own version, including, on that page, very helpful and full bibliographic references to the proceedings in which it originally appeared. Those proceedings are then somewhat harder to find. In fact, I have never seen them. Unfortunately, for the research community, Plaza’s work has never been followed up by a journal version. I am very grateful to the editor Wiebe van der Hoek of the journal ‘Knowledge, Rationality, and Action’ to correct this omission. Plaza’s work is reprinted as such, without an update encompassing more than fifteen additional years of research in this area. This commentary aims to provide some background to bridge that gap. This is a commentary on Jan Plaza’s ‘Logics of Public Communications’, reprinted in this same issue.     

Unifying ‘the’ Precautionary Principle? Justification and Reflective Equilibrium

Philosophia - The precautionary principle (PP) is an influential principle for making decisions when facing uncertain, but potentially severe, harm. However, there is a persistent disagreement...