Author ORCID Identifier

0000-0002-2777-5346

Location

Room 2

Document Type

Paper

Keywords

Argumentation, Evidence, Neoplatonism, Persuasion, Rhetoric

Start Date

4-6-2020 10:00 AM

End Date

4-6-2020 11:00 AM

Abstract

Every individual when making an opinion always sees from a here-and-now point of view characterized by an overlapping of beliefs (produced by inner activities dealing with reasonings, feelings and ethical standards). In the history of philosophy we can find two main types of evidence, based on what we might call “linear” and “fractal” rationality. In the light of the former, which almost exclusively fosters formal deductivism, evidence is based on mere systematic coherence, and all other sources of knowledge (intuitive, perceptive, symbolic, poetic, moral etc.) are marginalized – persuasion included. In the light of “fractal” rationality, which is more adherent to the ‘irregularities’ of life, evidence requires instead a meta-analytical approach, and persuasion is appreciated as a (not irrational) way to settle disagreements. I argue that these two different types of evidence and evaluation of persuasion are related, in the first case, to Neoplatonism and Cartesianism with their overestimation of identity, and in the second one to Plato’s account on the coessentiality of identity and diversity. The analysis of the two approaches could contribute to a better understanding of the relations between diversity, persuasion and evidence, also in order to manage conflicts of opinions.

Share

COinS
 
Jun 4th, 10:00 AM Jun 4th, 11:00 AM

“Identity-Based” and “Diversity-Based” Evidence Between Linear and Fractal Rationality

Room 2

Every individual when making an opinion always sees from a here-and-now point of view characterized by an overlapping of beliefs (produced by inner activities dealing with reasonings, feelings and ethical standards). In the history of philosophy we can find two main types of evidence, based on what we might call “linear” and “fractal” rationality. In the light of the former, which almost exclusively fosters formal deductivism, evidence is based on mere systematic coherence, and all other sources of knowledge (intuitive, perceptive, symbolic, poetic, moral etc.) are marginalized – persuasion included. In the light of “fractal” rationality, which is more adherent to the ‘irregularities’ of life, evidence requires instead a meta-analytical approach, and persuasion is appreciated as a (not irrational) way to settle disagreements. I argue that these two different types of evidence and evaluation of persuasion are related, in the first case, to Neoplatonism and Cartesianism with their overestimation of identity, and in the second one to Plato’s account on the coessentiality of identity and diversity. The analysis of the two approaches could contribute to a better understanding of the relations between diversity, persuasion and evidence, also in order to manage conflicts of opinions.