Why We Argue: A Sketch of an Epistemic-Democratic Program

Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 29 (2):60-67 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This essay summarizes the research program developed in our new book, Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement (Routledge, 2014). Humans naturally want to know and to take themselves as having reason on their side. Additionally, many people take democracy to be a uniquely proper mode of political arrangement. There is an old tension between reason and democracy, however, and it was first articulated by Plato. Plato’s concern about democracy was that it detached political decision from reason. Epistemic democrats attempt to show how the two can be re-attached. What is necessary is to couple the core democratic liberties with norms of rational exchange. Thus epistemology and argument provides a basis for democratic politics. Why We Argue (And How We Should) makes a case for the connection and develops a toolkit for maintaining it.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,497

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-01-10

Downloads
66 (#315,561)

6 months
10 (#377,653)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Robert B. Talisse
Vanderbilt University
Scott Aikin
Vanderbilt University

Citations of this work

Democratic epistemology and democratic morality: the appeal and challenges of Peircean pragmatism.Annabelle Lever & Clayton Chin - 2017 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 22 (4):432-453.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references