Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Assessing the Cogency of Arguments: lbree Kinds of Merits.William Rehg - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (2):95-115.
    This article proposes a way of connecting two levels at which scholars have studied discursive practices from a normative perspective: on the one hand, local transactions-face-to-face arguments or dialogues-and broadly dispersed public debates on the other. To help focus my analysis, I select two representatives of work at these two levels: the pragmadialectical model of critical discussion and Habermas's discourse theory of politicallegal deliberation. The two models confront complementary challenges that arise from gaps between their prescriptions and contexts of actual (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Habermas vs. Weber on democracy.Reihan Salam - 2001 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 15 (1-2):59-85.
    Habermas endorses democracy as a way to rescue modern life from the economic and bureaucratic compulsion that Weber saw as an inescapable condition of modernity. This rescue mission requires that Habermas subordinate democracy to people's true interests, by liberating their political deliberations from incursions of money or power that could interfere with the formation of policy preferences that clearly reflect those interests. But Habermas overlooks the opaque nature of our interests under complex modern conditions, and the difficulty of even knowing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Local Deliberation and the Favouring of Nature.Ivan Zwart - 2007 - Environmental Values 16 (4):485-511.
    The central contention of theories of deliberative democracy is that deliberative arrangements should encourage the support of interests that are general to all. Democratic theorists have also suggested that the natural environment will be a likely beneficiary following public deliberation, given the inherent rationality in supporting interests that will lead to the long-term survival of the planet. This paper addresses the question of general environmental interests through two case studies in Australian local government and argues there are at least three (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Habermas, Pupil Voice, Rationalism, and Their Meeting with Lacan’s Objet Petit A.Paul Moran & Mark Murphy - 2011 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 31 (2):171-181.
    ‘Pupil voice’ is a movement within state education in England that is associated with democracy, change, participation and the raising of educational standards. While receiving much attention from educators and policy makers, less attention has been paid to the theory behind the concept of pupil voice. An obvious point of theoretical departure is the work of Jürgen Habermas, who over a number of decades has endeavoured to develop a theory of democracy that places strong significance on language, communication and discourse. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Politics and morality in Habermas' discourse ethics.Gulshan Khan - 2012 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 38 (2):149-168.
    In this article I argue that Jürgen Habermas’ notion of morality (moral norms) has more in common with Hegel’s notion of ‘ethical life’ as a ‘ sittlich ’ relation – understood as a socially integrative force – rather than Kant’s supreme principle of personal morality. I show that Habermas and Hegel, each in his own way, make a distinction between morality and ethics. However, I make the case that Habermas’ conception of ‘morality’ incorporates aspects of Hegel’s notion of ‘ethical life’, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Cogency in Motion: Critical Contextualism and Relevance. [REVIEW]William Rehg - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):39-59.
    If arguments are to generate public knowledge, as in the sciences, then they must travel, finding acceptance across a range of local contexts. But not all good arguments travel, whereas some bad arguments do. Under what conditions may we regard the capacity of an argument to travel as a sign of its cogency or public merits? This question is especially interesting for a contextualist approach that wants to remain critically robust: if standards of cogency are bound to local contexts of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations