Abstract

In this text I discuss the cognitive and non-cognitive factors that determine the effectiveness of persuasion and argumentation which I dub “persuasive imponderabilia” due to the obvious difficulties with the operationalization of their impact in concrete, problem-solving situations. Concurrently, I also deal with the constitutive elements of persuasion examining their inherent qualities from a functional-pragmatic viewpoint. Specific attention is paid to: 1) The incompatibility of formal-logical models of argumentation with the reality of persuasive communication; 2) The need to include in the study of argumentation and persuasion, a subjective, axiologized vision of reality, as an important reference point in the functioning of “evidence”; 3) The heterogeneity of strategies for justifying convictions and beliefs which refer to various sources of cognition; and 4) The importance of philosophical queries concerning what is undetermined in human thinking and existence. These considerations are complemented by pointing to the logical improvability and unnecessariness of the very nature of the argumentation as well as to the role of a critical discussion in minimizing belief divergence in discursive interactions.