English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The Theory of Argumentation —in its «standard» version— is based on some fundamental non-distinctions. This trend of thought does not make clear many capital differences: between the two sorts of value judgments (the categorical ones and the instrumental ones), between a special kind of academic meta-language (Legal Theory) and its practical object-language (real judicial speeches), between ideal and real, between descriptive and prescriptive sentences, between truth and «utility», between concepts with a broad sense and rhetorical empty formulae («reasonable», etc.), between «political» resources of judicial discourses and genuine knowledge (a properly «scientific» one) about legal thinking, and more. The «standard» models bring up an essential reductionist approach: on the semantic level, they look away from the most current fallacies (the «normativist Syndrome») in the lawyers’ professional way of reasoning; besides, they simply do not pay attention to its pragmatic level (psycho-social factors, and factual conditionings in general).

Avatares de lo «racional» y lo «razonable», cuando son eximidos de tener carnet de identidad