Cover not available
Part of
Controversies in the Contemporary World
Edited by Adriano Fabris and Giovanni Scarafile
[Controversies 15] 2019
► pp. 7–28

Chapter 1
Leibniz beyond Leibniz

Rationality, controversies and the ethics of communication

This essay explains the conceptual tools used in the international LeLo project, coordinated by Marcelo Dascal, which have led, often with innovative results, to the reconstruction of the virtual debate between Leibniz and Locke. The project focuses on the connection between controversies and a specific idea of communication, articulated on several levels, in which the traditional mathematical theory of communication is finally surpassed. In this way, dialogue and care for the audience become the evidence of a more marked attention to the contexts in which a renewed ethics of communication is announced. It allows us to face adequately the new challenges posed by a reality so changing as to resemble a chameleon.
Keywords: alterity, audience, controversy, dialogue, ethics of communication, misunderstandings, Leibniz, Locke, pragmatics, rhetoric
Article outline
  • 1.A necessary premise
  • 2.Updating paradigms: From the mathematical theory of communication to an authentically human communication
  • 3.The role of misunderstandings
  • 4.The recovery of Grice’s pragmatics
  • 5.The relevance of the forms: Fallacies and strategic maneuvering
  • 6.The factors considered in the debate
    • 6.1Interrelations between text, text and context
    • 6.2Requests for misunderstandings and misrepresentations
    • 6.3Tactical moves vs. strategic moves
    • 6.4The attitude of the contenders to the debate
    • 6.5The attitude of the contenders towards each other
    • 6.6Dynamic development of the debate
  • 7.The results of the research: The threefold contrasting attitude of Leibniz in chapter 27 of the Nouveaux essais
    • 7.1Indirect plausibility
    • 7.2Dissimulation
    • 7.3Replacement
  • 8.Capturing the chameleon: Final remarks on rationality, controversies and ethics of communication
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.15.02sca
References (22)
References
Aristoteles, & , Kennedy, G. A. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (p. 77119163186). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Breger, H., Herbst, J., Erdner, S. (Eds.). (2011). Natur und Subject. vol. 3, Hannover: Gottfried-Wilhelm-Leibniz Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Castiglione, B. (1724). The Courter. London.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. (2003). Understanding misunderstanding. In M. Dascal, Interpretation and Understanding (pp. 293–321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Towards a dialectic of tolerance. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria 16(2), 529–541.Google Scholar
Dutens, L. (Ed.). (1768). G. G. Leibnitii Opera Omnia. Geneva, VI, I.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1991). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In J. Verschueren (ed.), Pragmatics at Issue. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 6:1, 1991. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 151–170.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 1, 283–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Meuffels, B. (2012). Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research. Argumentation, 26, 33–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabris, A. (2007). Senso e indifferenza. Un clusterbook di filosofia. Pisa: ETS.Google Scholar
(2014). Etica della comunicazione. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1997). In pursuit of wisdom: The scope of philosophy. Beverly Hills, CA]: Glencoe PressGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. “Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain” in GP V 39-509. Quoted from: Leibniz, G. W. (1997). New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1979). An Essay concerning Human Understanding. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lo Cascio, V. (1991). Grammatica dell’argomentare. Strategie e strutture. Scandicci (Firenze): La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
Mc Luhan, M. (1988). Laws of media. The new science. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, R. H. (1999). The Columbia History in Western Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ronchi, R. (2003). Teoria critica della comunicazione. Milano Bruno: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Scarafile, G. (2011). “Non pas en parlant à la rigueur”: prototypes of Leibniz’s contrastive attitude in Chapter 27, book II, of the Nouveaux Essais sur l’entendement humain, p.1000–1008. In: (2011) Breger, H. et al. (2011).Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1964). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press. Urbana.Google Scholar