This study examines the concept of argumentation empirically, to correct the normative conception of argumentation adopted by most scholars since Aristotle. They are not interested in what argumentation is, but in what it ought to be. The pre-Aristotelian approach is preferable, because it recognizes that argumentation, although it includes persuasion, also embraces other eristic techniques in which the speaker does not necessarily seek to persuade, but simply to prevail. This broader descriptive and pragmatic analysis explains the different ways in which (...) discourse actually occurs and particular arguments succeed, leaving in a secondary place the opinion of each author on how they should be. (shrink)

This text aims at pointing out some of the philosophy of law present in the works of the Hellenist philosopher and physician Sextus Empiricus (ΣΕΞΤΟϒ ΕΜΠΕΙΡΙΚΟϒ), and supports two main theses: the first, based on an epistemological point of view, presupposes that exact knowledge of the world — that is, an entirely adequate relationship between the mind of each human being and the events around — is not possible, which insurmountably renders all perception relative. The second thesis, from an axiological (...) point of view, postulates that Skepticism does not necessarily imply disregarding concepts of justice or abandoning any ethical parameters, but functions as an immunizing element against intolerance and dogmatism. (shrink)

This article is currently available as a free download on Ingenta Connect.