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

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Share

COinS
 
Jun 6th, 9:00 AM Jun 9th, 5:00 PM

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.