Description
In an era marked by deep division and polarized political discourse, 'Political Argument in a Polarized Age' offers an essential guide to navigating the complex landscape of modern debates. This insightful book by philosophers Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse delves into the art of civil disagreement, emphasizing the necessity of addressing opposing viewpoints sincerely. With the prevalence of online trolling and accusations of 'fake news', it's become more important than ever for concerned citizens to engage in meaningful dialogue that transcends hostility. This 160-page book, published by John Wiley & Sons in 2020 (ISBN: 9781509536535), provides crucial insights into political rhetoric, teaching readers to differentiate between real and simulated arguments. Aikin and Talisse argue that true democracy flourishes through constructive conflict. By acquiring rhetorical techniques for better disagreement, readers will learn how to reclaim essential democratic conversations from the clutches of superficial exchanges. This is more than just a philosophical text; it’s a practical manual for those keen on understanding the dynamics of political arguments in our current times. Whether you're a student of philosophy or a conscious citizen, this book is indispensable for fostering healthier discussions in a time when civil discourse is desperately needed. Note: Shipping for this item is free. Please allow up to 6 weeks for delivery. Once your order is placed, it cannot be cancelled. Condition: BRAND NEW.
Note: Shipping for this item is free. Please allow up to 6 weeks for delivery. Once your order is placed, it cannot be cancelled.
Condition: BRAND NEW
ISBN: 9781509536535
Year: 2020
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons (UK)
Pages: 160
Description:
From obnoxious public figures to online trolling and accusations of śfake newsť, almost no one seems able to disagree without hostility. But polite discord sounds farfetched when issues are so personal and fundamental that those on opposing sides appear to have no common ground. How do you debate the śenemyť? Philosophers Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse show that disagreeing civilly, even with your sworn enemies, is a crucial part of democracy. Rejecting the popular view that civility requires a polite and concessive attitude, they argue that our biggest challenge is not remaining calm in the face of an opponent, but rather ensuring that our political arguments actually address those on the opposing side. Too often politicians and pundits merely simulate political debate, offering carefully structured caricatures of their opponents. These simulations mimic political argument in a way designed to convince citizens that those with whom they disagree are not worth talking to. Good democracy thrives off conflict, but until we learn the difference between real and simulated arguments we will be doomed to speak at cross-purposes. Aikin and Talisse provide a crash course in political rhetoric for the concerned citizen, showing readers why understanding the structure of arguments is just as vital for a healthy democracy as debate over facts and values. But there™s a sting in the tail - no sooner have we learned rhetorical techniques for better disagreement than these techniques themselves become weapons with which to ignore our enemies, as accusations like śfalse equivalenceť an
Note: Shipping for this item is free. Please allow up to 6 weeks for delivery. Once your order is placed, it cannot be cancelled.
Condition: BRAND NEW
ISBN: 9781509536535
Year: 2020
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons (UK)
Pages: 160
Description:
From obnoxious public figures to online trolling and accusations of śfake newsť, almost no one seems able to disagree without hostility. But polite discord sounds farfetched when issues are so personal and fundamental that those on opposing sides appear to have no common ground. How do you debate the śenemyť? Philosophers Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse show that disagreeing civilly, even with your sworn enemies, is a crucial part of democracy. Rejecting the popular view that civility requires a polite and concessive attitude, they argue that our biggest challenge is not remaining calm in the face of an opponent, but rather ensuring that our political arguments actually address those on the opposing side. Too often politicians and pundits merely simulate political debate, offering carefully structured caricatures of their opponents. These simulations mimic political argument in a way designed to convince citizens that those with whom they disagree are not worth talking to. Good democracy thrives off conflict, but until we learn the difference between real and simulated arguments we will be doomed to speak at cross-purposes. Aikin and Talisse provide a crash course in political rhetoric for the concerned citizen, showing readers why understanding the structure of arguments is just as vital for a healthy democracy as debate over facts and values. But there™s a sting in the tail - no sooner have we learned rhetorical techniques for better disagreement than these techniques themselves become weapons with which to ignore our enemies, as accusations like śfalse equivalenceť an