Arguing with Engineered Concepts

Paper submissions are invited for the special issue/collection of Topoi entitled: Arguing with engineered concepts. The topical issue aims at presenting views on how and to what extent the development of conceptual engineering and the redefinition of (potentially) controversial concepts have a bearing on both the use of arguments and the study of argumentation. The issue aims to explore both the advantages and the possible pitfalls of employing engineered concepts and redefinitions in argumentative or persuasive discourse.

Special issue article publications often bring higher citations and visibility than regular papers and attract more relevant readership due to its scope. Topoi is indexed in the Web of Science under AHCI, currently in Quartile 1 and placed in the top-10 ranked Philosophy-Category journals, with a 2022 IF of 1,4 and CiteScore of 2,8.

Guest Editors

Martin Hinton, University of Lodz, email

Fabrizio Macagno, University of Lisbon, email

DESCRIPTION

The representation of concepts and word meaning is one of the most ancient and debated issues in philosophy of language and linguistics. This discussion, however, goes much beyond the boundaries of a theoretical or philosophical puzzle. The relationship between word meanings and concepts shapes the way we orient our choices, decisions, and actions, and the modification or manipulation of the allegedly shared definitions can lead to crucial social, political, legal, or medical consequences (Schiappa, 2003). What is the relationship between definitions, word use, and concepts (Jaszczolt, 2016, 2023)? What is a definition? What are the conditions for modifying a shared definition, and how is it possible to change it? These questions were addressed and analysed in depth in almost every logical textbook in the ancient tradition, but the interest in their possible answers has faded in the last decades. Research on the logic of definition and its manipulative uses has been limited to a few key works and very specific topics. However, both in the area of logic and argumentation, and in philosophy of language, this interest has revived in the last few years, with the emergence of new research on persuasive definitions and Conceptual Engineering.

These two trends of research clearly intersect and complement each other. Argumentation theories have been explicitly acknowledged as a crucial aspect of Ludlow’s approach to conceptual engineering and metalinguistic negotiations (2014, Chapter 2); the problem of definition, the Aristotelian account of word meaning negotiation, and the concept of precization (Naess, 2005) underlie both the argumentation and the CE theories, either as a starting point for developing new proposals, or as a reference with which to compare the novel approaches (Cappelen, 2018). Despite this deep relationship, there are good reasons why cooperation has not been as fruitful as might have been hoped – different backgrounds, different starting points, different methods.

Since conceptual engineering is clearly, in a sense, argumentative in its philosophical foundations and the roots of argumentation are tied to the precise meaning of concepts (see Aristotle, Topics, devoted to the problem of definition and greatly focused on the resolution of metalinguistic disputes), to a large degree scholars from the two traditions have long been heading in the same direction, but, due to the differences in their paths of approach there has been insufficient dialogue between the two groups. This issue is an attempt to unite these traditions by bringing a wide range of scholars together to present views on how and to what extent the development of conceptual engineering has a bearing on both the use of arguments and the study of argumentation. The issue aims to explore both the advantages and the possible pitfalls of employing engineered concepts in argumentative or persuasive discourse.

Possible topics include (but are not limited to):

The logic of definitions

Redefinitions and persuasives of definitions

Conceptual engineering

Manipulation through engineered concepts

Strategic uses of cultural keywords

Representation of concepts and semantic meaning

EXPECTED CONTRIBUTORS:

Delia Belleri, University of Lisbon

Martin Hinton, University of Lodz

David Hitchcock, McMaster University

Edward Schiappa. MIT

Katarzyna Jaszczolt, University of Cambridge

Jakub Prus, Jesuit University Ignatianum in Krakow

Fabrizio Macagno, Universidade de Lisboa

Xindi Ye, University of Hong Kong

Submission DEADLINE Please submit your paper by 30 March 2024. Should you not be able to meet this deadline, please contact the Guest Editors.

Online SUBMISSION: Please use the journal’s Online Manuscript Submission System Editorial Manager®. Do note that paper submissions via email are not accepted.

Author Submission’s GUIDELINES: Authors are asked to prepare their manuscripts according to the journal’s standard Submission Guidelines.

EDITORIAL PROCESS:

When uploading your paper in Editorial Manager, please select “SI: Arguing with engineered concepts (Hinton/Macagno)” in the drop-down menu “Article Type”.

Papers should not exceed a maximum of 9000 words.

All papers will undergo the journal’s standard review procedure (double-blind peer-review), according to the journal’s Peer Review Policy, Process and Guidance

Reviewers will be selected according to the Peer-Reviewer Selection policies.

Once papers are accepted, they will be made available as Online first articles publications until final publication into an issue and available on the page Collections.