Date of Award

2-4-2025

Publication Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Ph.D.

Department

Philosophy

Keywords

Argumentation; Emotions; Forms; Logic of emotions; Sensible Reasons; Social Movements

Supervisor

Christopher Tindale

Supervisor

Cappucci John

Rights

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

Abstract

This thesis introduces an innovative perspective, suggesting that sensible reasoning in argumentation is a process that imparts meaning and coherence to what is expressed, explaining both the argumentative levels and the process of persuasion within argumentation. The relevance of this contribution lies in its unique analysis, through which it becomes possible to speak of sensible reasons and understand, from the concept of the argumentative situation, how this reasoning operates for all involved at that moment. Sensible reasoning encompasses a logic that, while reasonable, is better interpreted through an aesthetic framework that addresses its perceptual and affective nature. Thus, this research underscores that emotions are not merely a complement in decision-making but an essential component that significantly contributes to the argumentative process. Traditionally, Argumentation theory has prioritized logical reasoning; however, this work demonstrates how people reach conclusions through a combination of sensible reasons, allowing for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of human reasoning. In this context, sensible reasons are presented as a valid form of understanding and evidence within the argumentative process, enlightening the audience about the complexity of human reasoning. The theoretical framework of this dissertation is based on Pablo Fernández Christlieb's theory of Collective Affectivity, which proposes that emotions can be understood from an aesthetic and cultural perspective. From this approach, which conceives emotions as social and collective elements, this dissertation argues that emotions influence individual perception and are also an integral part of argumentative processes, as argumentation is a cultural, collective, and sensible construct. By addressing emotions from an aesthetic logic, their capacity to structure and provide coherence to arguments is recognized, challenging traditional notions that perceive them as irrational or secondary. This dissertation argues that emotions provide both coherence and reasonableness to arguments. They function from their own affective logic and contribute to the formation of conclusions that integrate the sensible and the rational. In Chapter I, an exhaustive analysis is conducted on how emotions have historically been treated in Argumentation theory. Drawing on the contributions of thinkers such as Antonio Damasio and Robert Solomon, it is argued that emotions possess an internal logic that can be analyzed and evaluated, and that their role in decision-making has been underestimated. This chapter also introduces the concept of sensible reason, a type of reasoning deeply influenced by emotions, where the world is understood and explained through what is felt. Chapter II explores the role of aesthetics as an epistemological framework for understanding sensible knowledge. It examines how aesthetic and sensible forms influence the perception and reception of arguments and how emotions and sensible perceptions can provide evidence and meaning to argumentative processes. Through the analysis of artistic and cultural forms, it is shown how sensible knowledge contributes to the formation of meaning in argumentation. Chapter III introduces the concept of the argumentative situation, which refers to the context in which the argumentative process occurs and how emotions and sensible forms influence the reception of arguments. This chapter demonstrates how emotions play a crucial role in the persuasive effectiveness of arguments, especially in situations where formal logic alone is insufficient to capture the full depth of human reasoning. Chapter IV presents a case study on the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Mexico, exemplifying how a political movement can employ collective emotions, such as dignified rage, to structure its political discourse. The analysis of EZLN's speeches and narratives shows how emotions, articulated through cultural symbols and sensible forms, provide coherence and legitimacy to its political argumentation. This case study highlights how emotions and aesthetic elements are fundamental to the persuasive power of the EZLN's discourse. In conclusion, this dissertation significantly contributes to the field of Argumentation theory by proposing an integration of aesthetics and emotions in the analysis of reasoning and persuasion. By demonstrating that emotions are neither irrational nor merely complementary but essential to constructing and evaluating arguments, this research offers an innovative theoretical framework that allows for a broader and more complex understanding of human reasoning. Furthermore, it provides a practical approach that can be applied in various political and social contexts, offering a new way to understand how sensible forms influence argumentative processes.

Download

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS