Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
diegetics, evidence, judicial argumentation, mimetics, proposition, visual argumentation
Start Date
22-5-2013 9:00 AM
End Date
25-5-2013 5:00 PM
Abstract
To resolve a conflict of opinion regarding the past it is inevitable to present a reconstruction of that past, explicitly or implicitly. This we call the mimetic element. On an abstract level, a complete argumentation in the genus iudiciale requires a start that is mimetic and a follow-up that is diegetic. The question to be discussed is whether mimetic elements need to be formatted as sets of propositions and if so by whom.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Michael J. Hoppmann, Commentary on: Paul van den Hoven's "Mimetics in judicial argumentation: A theoretical exploration"
Reader's Reactions
Michael J. Hoppmann, Commentary on: Paul van den Hoven's "Mimetics in judicial argumentation: A theoretical exploration" (May 2013)
Included in
Mimetics in judicial argumentation: A theoretical exploration
University of Windsor
To resolve a conflict of opinion regarding the past it is inevitable to present a reconstruction of that past, explicitly or implicitly. This we call the mimetic element. On an abstract level, a complete argumentation in the genus iudiciale requires a start that is mimetic and a follow-up that is diegetic. The question to be discussed is whether mimetic elements need to be formatted as sets of propositions and if so by whom.
