Argumento jurídico-político numa abordagem pragmática

Abstract

This work is an interdisciplinary investigation of natural argumentation focusing on arguments of legal/political interest. Around the natural argumentation, there is a historical debate that polarizes the subject between a theoretical-formal issue and informal-practical issue. This split was already present in ancient Greece, with Plato and Aristotle on the one hand, and the Sophists on the other; and the topic is still controversial. Grice (1957), philosopher and logician, was one of the first to recognize that there should be compatibility between the formal and the informal as types of argumentation. For him, whether in more technical contexts or in more ordinary contexts, human rationality is the same. His proposal is a landmark for the so-called inferential pragmatics. On the other hand, Toulmin (1958) defended the idea that it is a matter of distinguishing the systematic study of the semantic proposition (idealized logic) of the pragmatic approach as uses of arguments. In the philosophy of logic, there is a general tendency to a perspective of preservation of formal aspects, as, for example, Frege and Russell did; however, there are those, such as Walton, Perelman, among others, inspired by Strawson, Grice and Austin, who try to develop a pragmatic approach to logic that complements formal and informal logic. Our thesis is that rationality must be assumed in a broad sense and that it underlies natural arguments, whether more formal, as the scientific ones, or more informal, as the everyday ones. We use inferential pragmatics because it makes connections with truth-conditions semantics (close to formal logic) and with two forms of argumentation, the legal-political argumentation and the ordinary one. Jurists, such as Hans Kelsen, Recaséns Siches, Robert Alexy and Chaïm Perelman, among others, try to identify the scientific value of the area of Law by seeking the foundations of logic and the legal bases of rationality in its hermeneutical properties. Like some of these, they seek to establish the nature of legal argumentation. We assume, given the notion of scientific perspectivism (Giere), that every theoretical approach is a perspective and that an interdisciplinary perspective can be developed from the metatheory of interfaces through internal and external interfaces. Considering this, our theoretical-argumentative study aimed to bring contributions to the interfaces between formal and informal arguments in its dimensions of legal-political use or daily use, by means of the bases of inferential pragmatics, such as the Gricean implicatures.