CFP: Deep Disagreements: 40 Years of The Logic of Deep Disagreements

2026-05-27

First published in 1985 in the journal Informal Logic, the essay The Logic of Deep Disagreements gave rise to a series of discussions whose scope and impact could hardly have been anticipated at the time. In this brief yet provocative text, the American philosopher Robert Fogelin presents a challenging thesis concerning the possibility of a very particular kind of disagreement that, over the last forty years, would transform The Logic of Deep Disagreements into a landmark in the history of contemporary philosophy: the thesis of deep disagreements. Emerging from clashes between “underlying principles,” deep disagreements, by their very nature, would not be subject to rational solution or, at least, to resolution through argumentative processes. The diagnosis is that, in cases where disagreement originates from a radical divergence between what Fogelin calls framework principles, the conditions for argumentation simply do not exist. What is at stake is not impartiality, stubbornness, or biased interest, but rather the absence of shared beliefs and preferences between the parties involved.

It is easy to understand why a thesis that calls into question notions so central to philosophy — especially within the so-called analytic tradition — would, by itself, be enough to provoke reactions in both past and present philosophical circles. Fogelin, however, introduces yet another highly controversial element by explicitly attributing the thesis to Ludwig Wittgenstein. Certainly, for anyone interested in the Austrian philosopher’s work — especially scholars of the notes published under the title On Certainty (1969) — the idea of a fundamental commitment to certainties that remain unspoken and exempt from the logical possibility of doubt is not unfamiliar. On the other hand, this alone is not sufficient for us to confidently claim that a thesis such as the one proposed by Fogelin can be so directly attributed to Wittgenstein.

The debate surrounding the article at the time of its first publication indeed generated both positive and negative criticism. In the relevant literature, the labels “optimists” and “pessimists” became conventionally used to classify favorable and unfavorable readings of Fogelin’s thesis. However, the topic would only achieve the undeniable prominence it holds today after the essay was republished in the same journal in a special 2005 issue featuring a selection of critical texts, which propelled the discussion beyond the disciplinary circles in which it had spent its first twenty years. Today, forty years after the first appearance of this short text, the literature on deep disagreements is remarkable, both in terms of the number of scholars examining the many possibilities and developments of the topic and in terms of the diversity of objects and areas of investigation directly or indirectly associated with the thesis of The Logic of Deep Disagreements.

In August 2025, to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the first presentation of Fogelin’s thesis, the IV Symposium on Deep Disagreements (SiDeP) was held. At the symposium, scholars from different institutions and countries gathered to explore the possibility of deep disagreements from a variety of perspectives. Among the participants, there was a shared impression: there is still much to be said about deep disagreements. For this reason, we believe that a volume published in Brazil bringing together the work of those dedicated to the study of deep disagreements is of broad interest.

The special issue Deep Disagreements: 40 Years of The Logic of Deep Disagreements, conceived as a space for critical reflection and intellectual production devoted to this topic, aims to bring together research exploring the multiple dimensions of deep disagreements from different philosophical perspectives. We therefore invite all those interested in this debate, from the most diverse areas of philosophy, to contribute to this special volume of the journal Principia.

 

Non-exhaustive list of topics of interest:

  • Epistemology

  • Social Epistemology

  • Hinge Epistemology

  • Philosophy of Language

  • Philosophy of Logic

  • Logic

  • Philosophy of Science

  • Philosophy of Law

  • Feminist Epistemology

  • Political philosophy

Submission deadline: August 30, 2026.

Expected publication date: March 2027.

Questions may be sent directly to palomasouzaxavier@gmail.com

Guest Editors: Paloma Xavier (PUC-Rio/CAPES), Vinícius Perenha (UERJ/CAPES), and Marcos Silva (UFPE/CNPq).