- Table View
- List View
Argentina’s Right-Wing Universe During the Democratic Period: Processes, Actors and Issues (Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right)
by Gisela Pereyra Doval Gastón SouroujonArgentina’s Right-Wing Universe During the Democratic Period provides a comprehensive analysis of the course of right-wing politics in the country in the last 40 years. In 1983, after the fall of a violent military regime, Argentina began the longest period of democratic stability in its history—40 years marked by economic, institutional, social and political crises. This book examines the trajectory of the different right-wing organisations and ideological developments during these years, seeking to understand both the distinctions and the continuities that lie beneath its metamorphoses. Argentina has always acted as a laboratory in which to appreciate how the major problems and questions that concern those who have studied the right-wing in recent decades are translated into a particular political culture. In an international scenario marked by the social and political growth of different right-wing movements, some of which pose a threat to liberal democracies, the study of the Argentine case can provide greater clarity and a different perspective on problems that transcend this specific national case. This book will be of interest to scholars of Argentinian and Latin American politics and history, as well as specialists on the comparative politics of the radical right.
Argentine Foreign Policy during the Military Dictatorship, 1976–1983: Between a Nationalist and Pragmatic Approach
by Magdalena LisińskaThis book examines Argentine foreign policy under the military dictatorship from 1976–1983, also known as the National Reorganization Process. It brings together case studies on the most distinctive decisions and key issues in the regime’s foreign relations, including the international response to human rights violations, the dispute with Chile over the Beagle Channel, covert operations in Central America, the Argentine nuclear program, and the Falklands War. Lisińska examines the influence of ideological factors on foreign policy decisions, highlighting the relationship between the nationalism shaping the military’s policy goals and its pragmatic approach to achieving them.
Arguably
by Christopher HitchensShortlisted for the 2012 Orwell Prize'As soon as we abandon our own reason', wrote Bertrand Russell, 'and are content to rely upon authority, there is no end to our troubles.'For over forty years, Christopher Hitchens has proclaimed truth where others have spun falsehood and written, with passionate commitment, on matters that others fear to broach. This volume of essays encompasses Hitchens' writing over the past decade on politics, literature and religion.In Arguably Hitchens explores a wide range of cultural and political issues, past and present. His fresh perceptions of figures as diverse as Charles Dickens, Karl Marx, Rebecca West and Philip Larkin are matched in brilliance by his acerbic discussions and intrepid observations, gathered over a lifetime of travelling and reporting from destinations such as Iran, China and Pakistan.Hitchens' life has above all else been one of defiance and wit, courage and humility: in an age of digital punditry and twenty-four hour hucksterism, he has been a voice of reason amid the clamour, making an indelible mark on politics and literature on both sides of the Atlantic. Arguably is the indispensible companion to the Anglosphere's pre-eminent political writer.
Arguing About Art: Contemporary Philosophical Debates
by Alex Neill Aaron RidleyOffering a unique 'debate' format, the third edition of the bestselling Arguing About Art is ideal for newcomers to aesthetics or philosophy of art. <p><p> This lively collection presents an extensive range of short, clear introductions to each of the discussions which include: sentimentality, appreciation, interpretation, understanding, objectivity, nature, food, and horror. <p><p> With revised introductions, updated suggestions for further reading and new sections on pornography and societies without art, Arguing About Art provides a stimulating and accessible anthology suitable for those coming to aesthetics for the first time. The book will also appeal to students of art history, literature, and cultural studies.
Arguing about Disability: Philosophical Perspectives
by Kristjana Kristiansen Simo Vehmas Tom ShakespeareDisability is a thorny and muddled concept - especially in the field of disability studies - and social accounts contest with more traditional biologically based approaches in highly politicized debates. Sustained theoretical scrutiny has sometimes been lost amongst the controversy and philosophical issues have often been overlooked in favour of the sociological. Arguing about Disability fills that gap by offering analysis and debate concerning the moral nature of institutions, policy and practice, and their significance for disabled people and society. This pioneering collection is divided into three sections covering definitions and theories of disability; disabled people in society and applied ethics. Each contributor – drawn from a wide range of academic backgrounds including disability studies, sociology, psychology, education, philosophy, law and health science – uses a philosophical framework to explore a central issue in disability studies. The issues discussed include personhood, disability as a phenomenon, social justice, discrimination and inclusion. Providing an overview of the intersection of disability studies and philosophical ethics, Arguing about Disability is a truly interdisciplinary undertaking. It will be invaluable for all academics and students with an interest in disability studies or applied ethics, as well as disability activists.
Arguing About Human Nature: Contemporary Debates
by Stephen M. Downes Edouard MacheryArguing About Human Nature covers recent debates--arising from biology, philosophy, psychology, and physical anthropology--that together systematically examine what it means to be human. Thirty-five essays--several of them appearing here for the first time in print--were carefully selected to offer competing perspectives on 12 different topics related to human nature. The context and main threads of the debates are highlighted and explained by the editors in a short, clear introduction to each of the 12 topics. Authors include Louise Anthony, Patrick Bateson, David Buller, John Dupre, Paul Griffiths, Sally Haslanger, Richard Lewontin, Ron Mallon, and E. O. Wilson. Contributors Rachel Cooper, Nancy Holmstrom, Kim Sterelny, and Elizabeth Cashdan provide brand new chapters in these debates. Suggested Reading lists offer curious readers new resources for exploring these debates further. Arguing About Human Nature is the first volume of its kind, designed to introduce to an interdisciplinary student audience some of the most important arguments on the subject generated by scientific research and philosophical reflection.
Arguing About Knowledge (Arguing About Philosophy Ser.)
by Ram NetaWhat is knowledge? What are the sources of knowledge? What is the value of knowledge? What can we know? Arguing About Knowledge offers a fresh and engaging perspective on the theory of knowledge. This comprehensive and imaginative selection of readings examines the subject in an unorthodox and entertaining manner whilst covering the fundamentals of the theory of knowledge. It includes classic and contemporary pieces from the most influential philosophers from Descartes, Russell, Quine and G.E. Moore to Richard Feldman, Edward Craig, Gilbert Harman and Roderick Chisholm. In addition, students will find fascinating alternative pieces from literary and popular work such as Lewis Caroll, Jorges Luis Borges and Paul Boghossian. Each article selected is clear, interesting and free from unnecessary jargon. The editors provide lucid introductions to each section in which they give an overview of the debate and outline the arguments of the papers. Arguing About Knowledge is an inventive and stimulating reader for students new to the theory of knowledge.
Arguing About Political Philosophy (Second Edition)
by Matt ZwolinskiThis second edition of Arguing About Political Philosophy is the most complete, up-to-date, and interdisciplinary anthology of its kind. Its selections cover both classic philosophical sources such as Hobbes and Rousseau, and contemporary figures such as Robert Nozick and G. A. Cohen. But additional excerpts from economists, psychologists, novelists, and legal theorists help students from diverse intellectual backgrounds to connect with and appreciate the problems and distinctive methodology of political philosophy. This second edition also goes beyond any other anthology on the market in its coverage of traditionally under-represented views such as libertarianism, neo-socialism, feminism, and critical race theory. And it is one of the only anthologies to go beyond A Theory of Justice in its coverage of the political thought of John Rawls. The volume is divided into 3 parts - Foundational Concepts; Government, the Economy and Morality; and Applied Political Philosophy - covering core arguments and emerging debates in topics like: social contract theory political economy property rights freedom equality immigration global distributive justice The new companion website offers valuable resources for instructors and students alike, including sample quizzes, exams, and writing assignments, extensive study questions for each reading, and an online version of the "What's Your Political Philosophy" self-assessment.
Arguing About Science (Arguing About Philosophy)
by Alexander Bird James LadymanArguing About Science is an outstanding, engaging introduction to the essential topics in philosophy of science, edited by two leading experts in the field. This exciting and innovative anthology contains a selection of classic and contemporary readings that examine a broad range of issues, from classic problems such as scientific reasoning; causation; and scientific realism, to more recent topics such as science and race; forensic science; and the scientific status of medicine. The editors bring together some of the most influential contributions of famous philosophers in the field, including John Stuart Mill and Karl Popper, as well as more recent extracts from philosophers and scientists such as Ian Hacking, Stephen Jay Gould, Bas van Fraassen, Nancy Cartwright, and John Worrall. The anthology is organised into nine clear sections: science, non science and pseudo-science race, gender and science scientific reasoning scientific explanation laws and causation science and medicine probability and forensic science risk, uncertainty and science policy scientific realism and anti-realism. The articles chosen are clear, interesting, and free from unnecessary jargon. The editors provide lucid introductions to each section in which they provide an overview of the debate, as well as suggestions for further reading.
Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us
by Arianne ShahvisiAn antidote to division: a book that arms you with the ability to build good arguments and find a path through conflict and confusion.Can you be racist to a white person? Does cancel culture exist?Is it ever okay to laugh at jokes that rely on racist, sexist or homophobic stereotypes? Is it sexist to say 'men are trash'?These questions tap into some of today's most divisive issues, and finding an answer can often lead to confusion and resentment.Political and generational divides often dictate how questions such as these are answered, and when asked most people give automatic answers that roughly align with the broader position they believe is right - though many flounder when asked to detail their reasoning. This creates cultural and political tribes, makes people nervous about engaging at all, or leads to the issues to be trivialised or attributed to the excessive sensitivity of 'snowflakes' to 'identity politics'. Arguing for a Better World cuts right to the heart of these tensions, with the aim of demonstrating the importance of rigorous definitions and distinctions, revealing the arguments that break the stalemates, and equipping listeners with the tools to identify and defend their positions. Drawing on Shahvisi's work as a philosopher, and using live controversies, well-known case studies, and personal anecdotes, this audiobook reveals and analyses the power relations that shape our social world, and offers powerful ways to challenge them.(P) 2023 Hodder & Stoughton Limited
Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us
by Arianne Shahvisi'Brings cooling clarity to the heat of today's culture wars' Priyamvada Gopal, author of Insurgent Empire'Allows us to not only interrogate our own views, but to persuade others using reason and optimism. A must read' Aaron Bastani, author of Fully Automated Luxury CommunismCan white people be victims of racism?Is it sexist to say 'men are trash'?Should we worry about 'cancel culture'?Tired of having the same old arguments? Kicking yourself for not being able to justify your views? Wondering whether individuals can bring about meaningful change?Now imagine that instead of losing another hour of your life in a social media spat or knowing that the only way to make it through lunch was by biting your tongue, you could find a way to talk about injustice - and, just possibly, change someone's mind.Many of us know what we think about inequality, but flounder when asked for our reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate - especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide. But living in echo chambers blunts our thinking, and if we can't persuade others, we have little hope of collectively bringing about change.In Arguing for a Better World, philosopher Arianne Shahvisi draws on examples from everyday life to show us how to work through a set of thorny moral questions, equipping us to not only identify our positions but to carefully defend them.'Logical, readable, authoritative . . . An everyday manual on how oppression came about, how it works, why it persists, and how to defeat it' Danny Dorling, author of Injustice: Why Social Inequality Still Persists and A Better Politics
Arguing for a Better World: How Philosophy Can Help Us Fight for Social Justice
by Arianne ShahvisiIs it sexist to say that &“men are trash&”? Can white people be victims of racism? Do we bear any individual responsibility for climate change?We&’ve all wrestled with questions like these, whether we&’re shouting at a relative across the dinner table, quarreling with old classmates on social media, or chatting late into the night with friends. Many people give kneejerk answers that roughly align with their broader belief system, but flounder when asked for their reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate—especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide.The truth is that our answers to these questions almost always rely on unexamined assumptions. In Arguing for a Better World, philosopher Arianne Shahvisi shows us how to work through thorny moral questions by examining their parts in broad daylight, equipping us to not only identify our own positions but to defend them as well. This book demonstrates the relevance of philosophy to our everyday lives, and offers some clear-eyed tools to those who want to learn how to better fight for justice and liberation for all.
Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion
by Robin Le PoidevinFirst Published in 2004. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
Arguing The Just War In Islam
by John Kelsay<P>Jihad, with its many terrifying associations, is a term widely used today, though its meaning is poorly grasped. Few people understand the circumstances requiring a jihad, or "holy" war, or how Islamic militants justify their violent actions within the framework of the religious tradition of Islam. <P>How Islam, with more than one billion followers, interprets jihad and establishes its precepts has become a critical issue for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim world.<P> John Kelsay's timely and important work focuses on jihad of the sword in Islamic thought, history, and culture.<P> Making use of original sources, Kelsay delves into the tradition of shari'a--Islamic jurisprudence and reasoning--and shows how it defines jihad as the Islamic analogue of the Western "just" war. <P>He traces the arguments of thinkers over the centuries who have debated the legitimacy of war through appeals to shari'a reasoning. <P>He brings us up to the present and demonstrates how contemporary Muslims across the political spectrum continue this quest for a realistic ethics of war within the Islamic tradition.<P> Arguing the Just War in Islam provides a systematic account of how Islam's central texts interpret jihad, guiding us through the historical precedents and Quranic sources upon which today's claims to doctrinal truth and legitimate authority are made.<P>In illuminating the broad spectrum of Islam's moral considerations of the just war, Kelsay helps Muslims and non-Muslims alike make sense of the possibilities for future war and peace.
Arguing the Just War in Islam
by John KelsayJihad, with its many terrifying associations, is a term widely used today, though its meaning is poorly grasped. Few people understand the circumstances requiring a jihad, or "holy" war, or how Islamic militants justify their violent actions within the framework of the religious tradition of Islam. How Islam, with more than one billion followers, interprets jihad and establishes its precepts has become a critical issue for both the Muslim and the non-Muslim world. John Kelsay's timely and important work focuses on jihad of the sword in Islamic thought, history, and culture. Making use of original sources, Kelsay delves into the tradition of shari'a--Islamic jurisprudence and reasoning--and shows how it defines jihad as the Islamic analogue of the Western "just" war. He traces the arguments of thinkers over the centuries who have debated the legitimacy of war through appeals to shari'a reasoning. He brings us up to the present and demonstrates how contemporary Muslims across the political spectrum continue this quest for a realistic ethics of war within the Islamic tradition. Arguing the Just War in Islam provides a systematic account of how Islam's central texts interpret jihad, guiding us through the historical precedents and Qur'anic sources upon which today's claims to doctrinal truth and legitimate authority are made. In illuminating the broad spectrum of Islam's moral considerations of the just war, Kelsay helps Muslims and non-Muslims alike make sense of the possibilities for future war and peace.
Arguing until Doomsday: Stephen Douglas, Jefferson Davis, and the Struggle for American Democracy (Civil War America)
by Michael E. WoodsAs the sectional crisis gripped the United States, the rancor increasingly spread to the halls of Congress. Preston Brooks's frenzied assault on Charles Sumner was perhaps the most notorious evidence of the dangerous divide between proslavery Democrats and the new antislavery Republican Party. But as disunion loomed, rifts within the majority Democratic Party were every bit as consequential. And nowhere was the fracture more apparent than in the raging debates between Illinois's Stephen Douglas and Mississippi's Jefferson Davis. As leaders of the Democrats' northern and southern factions before the Civil War, their passionate conflict of words and ideas has been overshadowed by their opposition to Abraham Lincoln. But here, weaving together biography and political history, Michael E. Woods restores Davis and Douglas's fatefully entwined lives and careers to the center of the Civil War era. Operating on personal, partisan, and national levels, Woods traces the deep roots of Democrats' internal strife, with fault lines drawn around fundamental questions of property rights and majority rule. Neither belief in white supremacy nor expansionist zeal could reconcile Douglas and Davis's factions as their constituents formed their own lines in the proverbial soil of westward expansion. The first major reinterpretation of the Democratic Party's internal schism in more than a generation, Arguing until Doomsday shows how two leading antebellum politicians ultimately shattered their party and hastened the coming of the Civil War.
Arguing Well
by John ShandArguing Well is a lucid introduction to the nature of good reasoning, how to test and construct successful arguments. It assumes no prior knowledge of logic or philosophy. The book includes an introduction to basic symbolic logic. Arguing Well introduces and explains: * The nature and importance of arguments * What to look for in deciding whether arguments succeed or fail * How to construct good arguments * How to make it more certain that we reason when we should The book is ideal for any student embarking on academic study where presenting arguments are what matters most; in fact, for all people who want to understand the nature and importance of good reasoning and awaken their ability to argue well.
Arguing with Numbers: The Intersections of Rhetoric and Mathematics (RSA Series in Transdisciplinary Rhetoric #16)
by James Wynn G. Mitchell ReyesAs discrete fields of inquiry, rhetoric and mathematics have long been considered antithetical to each other. That is, if mathematics explains or describes the phenomena it studies with certainty, persuasion is not needed. This volume calls into question the view that mathematics is free of rhetoric. Through nine studies of the intersections between these two disciplines, Arguing with Numbers shows that mathematics is in fact deeply rhetorical. Using rhetoric as a lens to analyze mathematically based arguments in public policy, political and economic theory, and even literature, the essays in this volume reveal how mathematics influences the values and beliefs with which we assess the world and make decisions and how our worldviews influence the kinds of mathematical instruments we construct and accept. In addition, contributors examine how concepts of rhetoric—such as analogy and visuality—have been employed in mathematical and scientific reasoning, including in the theorems of mathematical physicists and the geometrical diagramming of natural scientists. Challenging academic orthodoxy, these scholars reject a math-equals-truth reduction in favor of a more constructivist theory of mathematics as dynamic, evolving, and powerfully persuasive. By bringing these disparate lines of inquiry into conversation with one another, Arguing with Numbers provides inspiration to students, established scholars, and anyone inside or outside rhetorical studies who might be interested in exploring the intersections between the two disciplines.In addition to the editors, the contributors to this volume are Catherine Chaput, Crystal Broch Colombini, Nathan Crick, Michael Dreher, Jeanne Fahnestock, Andrew C. Jones, Joseph Little, and Edward Schiappa.
Arguing with Numbers: The Intersections of Rhetoric and Mathematics (RSA Series in Transdisciplinary Rhetoric)
by James Wynn G. Mitchell ReyesAs discrete fields of inquiry, rhetoric and mathematics have long been considered antithetical to each other. That is, if mathematics explains or describes the phenomena it studies with certainty, persuasion is not needed. This volume calls into question the view that mathematics is free of rhetoric. Through nine studies of the intersections between these two disciplines, Arguing with Numbers shows that mathematics is in fact deeply rhetorical. Using rhetoric as a lens to analyze mathematically based arguments in public policy, political and economic theory, and even literature, the essays in this volume reveal how mathematics influences the values and beliefs with which we assess the world and make decisions and how our worldviews influence the kinds of mathematical instruments we construct and accept. In addition, contributors examine how concepts of rhetoric—such as analogy and visuality—have been employed in mathematical and scientific reasoning, including in the theorems of mathematical physicists and the geometrical diagramming of natural scientists. Challenging academic orthodoxy, these scholars reject a math-equals-truth reduction in favor of a more constructivist theory of mathematics as dynamic, evolving, and powerfully persuasive. By bringing these disparate lines of inquiry into conversation with one another, Arguing with Numbers provides inspiration to students, established scholars, and anyone inside or outside rhetorical studies who might be interested in exploring the intersections between the two disciplines.In addition to the editors, the contributors to this volume are Catherine Chaput, Crystal Broch Colombini, Nathan Crick, Michael Dreher, Jeanne Fahnestock, Andrew C. Jones, Joseph Little, and Edward Schiappa.
Argument And Persuasion In Descartes' Meditations
by David CunningDescartes' Meditations on First Philosophy has proven to be not only one of the canonical texts of Western philosophy, but also the site of a great deal of interpretive activity in scholarship on the history of early modern philosophy over the last two decades. David Cunning's monograph proposes a new interpretation, which is that from beginning to end the reasoning of the Meditations is the first-person reasoning of a thinker who starts from a confused non-Cartesian paradigm and moves slowly and awkwardly toward a grasp of just a few of the central theses of Descartes' system. The meditator of the Meditations is not a full-blown Cartesian at the start or middle or even the end of inquiry, and accordingly the Meditations is riddled with confusions throughout. Cunning argues that Descartes is trying to capture the kind of reasoning that a non-Cartesian would have to engage in to make the relevant epistemic progress, and that the Meditations rhetorically models that reasoning. He proposes that Descartes is reflecting on what happens in philosophical inquiry: we are unclear about something, we roam about using our existing concepts and intuitions, we abandon or revise some of these, and then eventually we come to see a result as clear that we did not see as clear before. Thus Cunning's fundamental insight is that Descartes is a teacher, and the reader a student. With that reading in mind, a significant number of the interpretive problems that arise in the Descartes literature dissolve when we make a distinction between the Cartesian and non-Cartesian elements of the Meditations, and a better understanding of surrounding texts is achieved as well. This important volume will be of great interest to scholars of early modern philosophy.
The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws
by Leo StraussThe posthumous publication of The Argument and the Action of Plato's "Laws" was compiled shortly before the death of Leo Strauss in 1973. Strauss offers an insightful and instructive reading through careful probing of Plato's classic text. "Strauss's The Argument and the Action of Plato's 'Laws' reflects his interest in political thought, his dogged method of following the argument of the Laws step by step, and his vigorous defense of this dialogue's integrity in respect to the ideals of the Republic. "—Cross Currents "The unique characteristics of this commentary on the Laws reflect the care and precision which were the marks of Professor Strauss's efforts to understand the complex thoughts of other men. "—Allan D. Nelson, Canadian Journal of Political Science "Thorough and provocative, an important addition to Plato scholarship. "—Library Journal "The major purpose of the commentary is to provide a reading of the dialogue which displays its structural arrangement and the continuity of the argument. "—J. W. Dy, Bibliographical Bulletin of Philosophy "The reader of Strauss's book is indeed guided closely through the whole text. "— M. J. Silverthorne, The Humanities Association Review Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Chicago.
The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws
by Leo StraussThe posthumous publication of The Argument and the Action of Plato's "Laws" was compiled shortly before the death of Leo Strauss in 1973. Strauss offers an insightful and instructive reading through careful probing of Plato's classic text. "Strauss's The Argument and the Action of Plato's 'Laws' reflects his interest in political thought, his dogged method of following the argument of the Laws step by step, and his vigorous defense of this dialogue's integrity in respect to the ideals of the Republic."—Cross Currents "The unique characteristics of this commentary on the Laws reflect the care and precision which were the marks of Professor Strauss's efforts to understand the complex thoughts of other men."—Allan D. Nelson, Canadian Journal of Political Science "Thorough and provocative, an important addition to Plato scholarship."—Library Journal "The major purpose of the commentary is to provide a reading of the dialogue which displays its structural arrangement and the continuity of the argument."—J. W. Dy, Bibliographical Bulletin of Philosophy "The reader of Strauss's book is indeed guided closely through the whole text."— M. J. Silverthorne, The Humanities Association Review Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Chicago.
Argument Evaluation and Evidence (Law, Governance and Technology Series #23)
by Douglas WaltonThis monograph poses a series of key problems of evidential reasoning and argumentation. It then offers solutions achieved by applying recently developed computational models of argumentation made available in artificial intelligence. Each problem is posed in such a way that the solution is easily understood. The book progresses from confronting these problems and offering solutions to them, building a useful general method for evaluating arguments along the way. It provides a hands-on survey explaining to the reader how to use current argumentation methods and concepts that are increasingly being implemented in more precise ways for the application of software tools in computational argumentation systems. It shows how the use of these tools and methods requires a new approach to the concepts of knowledge and explanation suitable for diverse settings, such as issues of public safety and health, debate, legal argumentation, forensic evidence, science education, and the use of expert opinion evidence in personal and public deliberations.
The Argument of Mathematics
by Andrew Aberdein Ian J DoveWritten by experts in the field, this volume presents a comprehensive investigation into the relationship between argumentation theory and the philosophy of mathematical practice. Argumentation theory studies reasoning and argument, and especially those aspects not addressed, or not addressed well, by formal deduction. The philosophy of mathematical practice diverges from mainstream philosophy of mathematics in the emphasis it places on what the majority of working mathematicians actually do, rather than on mathematical foundations. The book begins by first challenging the assumption that there is no role for informal logic in mathematics. Next, it details the usefulness of argumentation theory in the understanding of mathematical practice, offering an impressively diverse set of examples, covering the history of mathematics, mathematics education and, perhaps surprisingly, formal proof verification. From there, the book demonstrates that mathematics also offers a valuable testbed for argumentation theory. Coverage concludes by defending attention to mathematical argumentation as the basis for new perspectives on the philosophy of mathematics.
An Argument Open to All
by Sanford LevinsonIn "An Argument Open to All, " renowned legal scholar Sanford Levinson takes a novel approach to what is perhaps America's most famous political tract. Rather than concern himself with the authors as historical figures, or how "The Federalist" helps us understand the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, Levinson examines each essay for the "political" wisdom it can offer us today. In eighty-five short essays, each keyed to a different essay in "The Federalist, " he considers such questions as whether present generations can rethink their constitutional arrangements; how much effort we should exert to preserve America's traditional culture; and whether "The Federalist"'s arguments even suggest the desirability of world government. "