Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Restricted Access
Start Date
6-6-2007 9:00 AM
End Date
9-6-2007 5:00 PM
Abstract
Horowitz (2000) http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17180/article_detail.asp argues that politics should be viewed as war; participants in political discourse should be defined as friends or enemies; and arguments should be viewed largely as weapons. This makes valuing dissensus and a search for common ground naïve at best, and counterproductive and useless at worse. This essay will explore the nature of Horowitz’ position and the future search for common ground needed for the valuing of dissensus.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Included in
Common Ground or Battlefield? Political Argument and Valuing Dissensus
University of Windsor
Horowitz (2000) http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.17180/article_detail.asp argues that politics should be viewed as war; participants in political discourse should be defined as friends or enemies; and arguments should be viewed largely as weapons. This makes valuing dissensus and a search for common ground naïve at best, and counterproductive and useless at worse. This essay will explore the nature of Horowitz’ position and the future search for common ground needed for the valuing of dissensus.
