From obnoxious public figures to online trolling and accusations of
"fake news", 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 "enemy"? 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 "false equivalence" and "ad hominem" are used to silence
criticism. Civility requires us to be eternally vigilant to the
ways we disagree.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!