Home
»
Political Argument in a Polarized Age
Political Argument in a Polarized Age
Regular price
€18.50
602 verified reviews
100% verified
Delivery/Collection within 10-20 working days
Shipping & Delivery
Shipping & Delivery
Our Delivery Time Frames Explained
2-4 Working Days: Available in-stock
10-20 Working Days: On Backorder
Will Deliver When Available: On Pre-Order or Reprinting
We ship your order once all items have arrived at our warehouse and are processed. Need those 2-4 day shipping items sooner? Just place a separate order for them!
Close
A01=Robert B. Talisse
A01=Scott F. Aikin
Age Group_Uncategorized
Age Group_Uncategorized
argument
Author_Robert B. Talisse
Author_Scott F. Aikin
automatic-update
Category1=Non-Fiction
Category=JPA
civil disagreement
civility
COP=United Kingdom
debate
Delivery_Delivery within 10-20 working days
democracy
democracy in a divided world
eq_bestseller
eq_isMigrated=2
eq_nobargain
eq_non-fiction
eq_society-politics
Language_English
liberal democracy
PA=Available
political argument
political debate
political disagreement
political philosophy
political science
political theory
politicians
politics
Price_€10 to €20
PS=Active
softlaunch
Product details
- ISBN 9781509536535
- Weight: 204g
- Dimensions: 140 x 213mm
- Publication Date: 03 Apr 2020
- Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Ltd
- Publication City/Country: GB
- Product Form: Paperback
- Language: English
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.
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.
Scott F. Aikin is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University.
Robert B. Talisse is W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University.
Robert B. Talisse is W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University.
Political Argument in a Polarized Age
€18.50
