Search

The informational paradigm of communication stipulates that agents talk to convey non-redundant information to other agents. If we turn to self-directed talk and, in particular, to private speech, however, we find a clear counterexample. After all, in self-directed speech, the roles of speaker and hearer coincide in the same agent. My goal here is to search for an alternative paradigm that explains private speech in its various intrapersonal and intersubjective uses. To that end, I consider two alternatives, the dispositional and the deontic paradigms, which assume respectively that we talk to generate dispositions and to negotiate commitments in coordinated actions. In comparing their merits, I show that the second one is preferable because it explains private uses of language with phatic function better than the first one. Such uses show that communication can turn to aspects of its own infrastructure; regrettably, they have been systematically neglected in the philosophical literature, even though they seem to be a crucial part of a complete answer to the question “Why do we talk?”. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the investment in the systems of councils or other forms of spontaneous political manifestation, in which Arendt (1990) presents a conception of a political body inserted into local problems, thus, becoming the basic problems of organization, coordination, and deliberation. Her political thinking expressed mainly in her work On Revolution (1990), the political bodies created by the two Revolutions of XVIII century did not materialize as the full expression of a State Council. Likewise, this author emphasizes the system of councils or other bodies of spontaneous popular initiatives as fundamental paradigms for the organizational structure of the political body set up as a novelty unprecedented in the west history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]