Truth and fake news in the classroom: the sense construction and the discoursive ethics in literacy practices

This paper aims to present a proposal of literacy practice, which reflects current and relevant topics such as truth (FOUCAULT, 2014) and the fake news (FONTANA, 2021), from the perspective of discourse ethics (SOUTO MAIOR, 2020). In this proposal, we articulate the reflection on those topics together with the production of a review – a textual genre widely used in the academic sphere. We situate our proposal in the perspective of Applied Linguistics (AL), by focusing on the issue of language as a social practice, which reflects constitutive aspects of society and culture that is crossed by discursive practices built from ideological threads (FABRÍCIO, 2006) and, for this reason, are present in literacy practices. In this proposal we have used the movie called "The invention of lying" (2009), because we could realize this movie as a useful resource that allow subjects to reflect about different aspects which they face in their social context and is related to writing and reading process in the world (LIMA; SOUTO MAIOR, 2020)

Post-Modern Cosmopolitanism & Discourse Ethics

<p>This paper sets out an approach – post-modern cosmopolitanism – that seeks to allow moral conversation and moral justification between groups and individuals who do not share any substantive values. It does this without denying the plurality of value systems (universalism) and without allowing groups to retreat behind inviolable walls of ethical self-containment (relativism). The approach relies on many aspects of Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, but it takes discourse ethics in a new direction, leading to a unique approach. I start the paper by showing the problems with the current dominant alternatives – universalism and relativism – both in terms of their lack of internal consistency and in terms of their inability to mitigate and resolve conflict in practice. I then introduce some of the important concepts that form the basis of the post-modern cosmopolitan approach: discourse ethics, communicative reason, the principles of discourse, and the idea of fundamental goals. Following this I discuss the nature of ‘reasons,’ in order to make sense of the claim of discourse ethics that we should engage with each other via an ‘exchange of reasons,’ and also to outline some of the key distinctions necessary for understanding the praxis of post-modern cosmopolitanism, the ‘cosmopolitan conversation’. Finally I examine some of the deficiencies in Habermas’s discourse ethics, and show how post-modern cosmopolitanism can overcome them. I conclude by outlining the nature of the ‘cosmopolitan conversation,’ and gesture at how we might begin to apply post-modern cosmopolitanism in real-world situations.</p>

Post-Modern Cosmopolitanism & Discourse Ethics

<p>This paper sets out an approach – post-modern cosmopolitanism – that seeks to allow moral conversation and moral justification between groups and individuals who do not share any substantive values. It does this without denying the plurality of value systems (universalism) and without allowing groups to retreat behind inviolable walls of ethical self-containment (relativism). The approach relies on many aspects of Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, but it takes discourse ethics in a new direction, leading to a unique approach. I start the paper by showing the problems with the current dominant alternatives – universalism and relativism – both in terms of their lack of internal consistency and in terms of their inability to mitigate and resolve conflict in practice. I then introduce some of the important concepts that form the basis of the post-modern cosmopolitan approach: discourse ethics, communicative reason, the principles of discourse, and the idea of fundamental goals. Following this I discuss the nature of ‘reasons,’ in order to make sense of the claim of discourse ethics that we should engage with each other via an ‘exchange of reasons,’ and also to outline some of the key distinctions necessary for understanding the praxis of post-modern cosmopolitanism, the ‘cosmopolitan conversation’. Finally I examine some of the deficiencies in Habermas’s discourse ethics, and show how post-modern cosmopolitanism can overcome them. I conclude by outlining the nature of the ‘cosmopolitan conversation,’ and gesture at how we might begin to apply post-modern cosmopolitanism in real-world situations.</p>

HABERMASIAN DISCOURSE THEORY OF MORALITY: A CRITIQUE

In this present work, I have made an attempt to discuss the concept of discourse ethics with its basic characteristics, and finally the main problems concerning Habermasian discourse theory of morality. Discourse ethics is an approach to ethics that is founded upon rules of dialogue, and which encourages participants to approach an ethical dilemma with both pure rational reason and experience firmly in hand. Habermasian discourse ethics is widely known as deliberative democratic theory often praised for its ideals. The concept of communicative action plays a central role in the development of Habermas discourse morality. It is a theory of morality, which claims that moral norms concerning justice can be tested rationally in an argumentative dialogue the ideal precondition is that dialogue should be free from domination. With its various characteristics, some main problems concerning Habermasian Discourse ethics is also discussed in this paper.

The Vulnerable Dynamics of Discourse

In this paper, we offer some compelling reasons to think that issues relating to vulnerability play a significant – albeit thus far underacknowledged – role in Jürgen Habermas’s notions of communicative action and discourse. We shall argue that the basic notions of discourse and communicative action presuppose a robust conception of vulnerability and that recognising vulnerability is essential for (i) making sense of the social character of knowledge, on the epistemic side of things, and for (ii) making sense of the possibility of deliberative democracy, on the political side of things. Our paper is divided into four principal sections. In Section 1, we provide a basic outline of Habermas on communicative action and discourse. In Section 2, we develop an account of vulnerability and communication in the context of speaker/hearer relations. We specifically focus on distorted communication, vulnerability and speech. In Section 3, we focus on elaborating epistemic pathologies in the context of epistemic oppression and testimonial injustice. In Section 4, we focus on explaining how Habermasian resources contribute to vulnerability theory, and how introducing vulnerability theory to Habermas broadens or deepens his theory of communication action and his discourse ethics theory.

Discourse

This chapter engages the discursive problem of music in both popular and academic literature, and, using ethnographic evidence, shows that musical meaning is partially determined and simultaneously configured via linguistic and generic means. One of the ways communities may form is around shared understanding of musical meaning, and musical meaning may be determined largely by generic understandings—musical genres often function discursively for North American evangelicals. The chapter argues that generic musical meaning is imbued with values and convictions, claiming that these are negotiated as a kind of discourse ethics. However, these generic understandings of meaning are unstable, being troubled by the competing claims of authenticity and control. This instability precludes ethical theorization on the premise of discourse alone, yet it indicates that the discourse that takes place both around and through musical activity is ethically important and should be taken into account in any ethical theory that gives an account of music.