The new advances in IT have created a social context of generalised communication in which the classic distinction between issuers and receivers is increasingly blurred. Today's public controversies are joined by different voices and perspectives every day, leaving behind —for good— the comfort, as well as the limitations, of a unique narrative. In this context, opportunities and risks abound. One of the opportunities is incorporating more voices into the collective acquis, in an attempt to render justice to increasingly complex social realities. The risks include the emptying of difficult notions such as truth, values ​​or rationality in favour of more ductile substitutes such as post-truth, interest or opinion, which could end up disarticulating the very possibility of deliberation and rational agreement.

Claiming the role of rationality against authority arguments, against the weight of tradition or the inertia of habit, has been a touchstone of philosophical thought since its inception. However, the dominant way of understanding the exercise of reason has traditionally appealed to universal principles and values, often leading to the idea that, as it happens in matters of science or fact, there are "value experts". Standing between a monolithic conception of rationality and the mere juxtaposition of diverse opinions, today's thinking faces the challenge of making viable the rational interaction between individuals who, coming from different points of view, experience every day the need to coordinate their actions.