- Table View
- List View
Arguing About Literature: A Guide And Reader
by John Schilb John CliffordMore and more, first- year writing courses foreground skills of critical analysis and argumentation. In response, Arguing about Literature hones students' analytical skills through instruction in close critical reading of texts, showing them how to turn their reading into well-supported and rhetorically effective argumentative writing. Two books in one, it combines a guide to reading literature and writing arguments with a compact thematic anthology of stories, poems, plays, essays, and arguments for analysis and research, from the authors of Making Literature Matter.
Arguing About Literature: A Guide And Reader
by John Schilb John CliffordArguing about Literature: A Brief Guide hones students’ analytical skills though instruction in close critical reading of texts, showing them how to turn their reading into well-supported and rhetorically effective argumentative and researched writing.
Arguing About Literature: A Guide and Reader
by John Schilb John CliffordArguing about Literature hones your analytical and argumentative writing skills by combining two books in one: a guide to reading literature and writing arguments, and a thematic anthology of literature and essays.
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 James Ladyman Alexander BirdArguing 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 About Tastes: Modeling How Context and Experience Change Economic Preferences (Kenneth J. Arrow Lecture Series)
by David KrepsMainstream economics considers individual preferences to be fixed and unchanging. Although psychologists and other social scientists explore how tastes are formed, influenced, and evolve, it is not considered “proper” in orthodox economics to do so. Arguing About Tastes makes the case that economists should abandon the principle that preferences are fixed and instead incorporate into their work how context and experience shape individual tastes.David M. Kreps argues that the discipline must account for dynamic personal tastes when it comes to understanding social exchange, emphasizing human resource management and on-the-job behavior. He develops formal models that illustrate the power of intrinsic motivation and show why applying extrinsic incentives can be counterproductive. Kreps weighs the advantages and disadvantages of the principle de gustibus non est disputandum: there is no arguing about tastes. He calls for a new era of economics in which preferences are taken into account—and not for granted.Arguing About Tastes concludes with responses by the distinguished economists Alessandra Casella and Joseph E. Stiglitz and a final reply by Kreps.
Arguing About War
by Michael WalzerMichael Walzer is one of the world's most eminent philosophers on the subject of war and ethics. Now, for the first time since his classic Just and Unjust Wars was published almost three decades ago, this volume brings together his most provocative arguments about contemporary military conflicts and the ethical issues they raise. The essays in the book are divided into three sections. The first deals with issues such as humanitarian intervention, emergency ethics, and terrorism. The second consists of Walzer's responses to particular wars, including the first Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And the third presents an essay in which Walzer imagines a future in which war might play a less significant part in our lives. In his introduction, Walzer reveals how his thinking has changed over time. Written during a period of intense debate over the proper use of armed force, this book gets to the heart of difficult problems and argues persuasively for a moral perspective on war.
Arguing Comics: Literary Masters on a Popular Medium (Studies in Popular Culture Series)
by Jeet Heer Kent WorcesterWhen Art Spiegelman's Maus—a two-part graphic novel about the Holocaust—won a Pulitzer Prize in 1992, comics scholarship grew increasingly popular and notable. The rise of “serious” comics has generated growing levels of interest as scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals continue to explore the history, aesthetics, and semiotics of the comics medium. Yet those who write about the comics often assume analysis of the medium didn't begin until the cultural studies movement was underway. Arguing Comics: Literary Masters on a Popular Medium brings together nearly two dozen essays by major writers and intellectuals who analyzed, embraced, and even attacked comic strips and comic books in the period between the turn of the century and the 1960s. From e. e. cummings, who championed George Herriman's Krazy Kat, to Irving Howe, who fretted about Harold Gray's Little Orphan Annie, this volume shows that comics have provided a key battleground in the culture wars for over a century. With substantive essays by Umberto Eco, Marshall McLuhan, Leslie Fiedler, Gilbert Seldes, Dorothy Parker, Irving Howe, Delmore Schwartz, and others, this anthology shows how all of these writers took up comics-related topics as a point of entry into wider debates over modern art, cultural standards, daily life, and mass communication. Arguing Comics shows how prominent writers from the Jazz Age and the Depression era to the heyday of the New York Intellectuals in the 1950s thought about comics and, by extension, popular culture as a whole.
Arguing Counterterrorism: New perspectives (Routledge Critical Terrorism Studies)
by Daniela PisoiuThis book offers a multifaceted, analytical account of counterterrorism argumentative speech. Traditionally, existing scholarship in this field of research has taken a selective focus on issues and actors, concentrating mainly on US state discourse after 9/11. However, this approach ignores the fact that there was counterterrorism speech before 9/11, and that there are other countries and other actors who also actively engage in the counterterrorism discursive field, both within and outside of the Western world. Addressing several thematic, chronological and methodological gaps in the current literature, Arguing Counterterrorism offers a dynamic perspective on counterterrorism argumentative speech. Over the course of the volume, the authors tackle the following key issues: first, historical and cultural continuity and change. Second, the phenomenology of counterterrorism speech: its nature, instrumentalisation, implications and interactions between the various actors involved. The third theme is the anatomy of counterterrorism speech; namely its political, cultural and linguistic constitutive elements. Employing a multi-disciplinary framework, the authors explore these issues through a geographically and historically diverse range of case studies, resulting in a book that broadens the perspective of counterterrorism argumentation analysis. This book will be of much interest to students of critical terrorism studies, counterterrorism, discourse analysis, security studies and IR.
Arguing Development Policy: Frames and Discourses
by Des Gasper Raymond ApthorpeThis collection shows how policy discourses in the fields of national and international developments are constructed and operate and how they can be analysed. Dominant discourses screen out certain aspects: they frame' issues to include some matters and typically exclude important others. More generally, different policy discourses construct the world in distinctive ways, through language that requires deconstruction and careful review.
Arguing From Evidence in Middle School Science: 24 Activities for Productive Talk and Deeper Learning
by Brian M. Donovan Anna C. MacPherson Andrew J. Wild Jonathan Francis Osborne J. (Joseph) HendersonTeaching your students to think like scientists starts here! If you’ve ever struggled to help students make scientific arguments from evidence, this practical, easy-to-use activity book is for you! Give your students the critical scientific practice today′s science standards require. You’ll discover strategies and activities to effectively engage students in arguments about competing data sets, opposing scientific ideas, applying evidence to support specific claims, and more. 24 ready-to-implement activities drawn from the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences help teachers to: Align lessons to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Engage students in the 8 NGSS science and engineering practices Establish rich, productive classroom discourse Facilitate reading and writing strategies that align to the Common Core State Standards Extend and employ argumentation and modeling strategies Clarify the difference between argumentation and explanation Includes assessment guidance and extension activities. Learn to teach the rational side of science the fun way with this simple and straightforward guide!
Arguing From Evidence in Middle School Science: 24 Activities for Productive Talk and Deeper Learning
by Brian M. Donovan Anna C. MacPherson Andrew J. Wild Jonathan Francis Osborne J. (Joseph) HendersonTeaching your students to think like scientists starts here! If you’ve ever struggled to help students make scientific arguments from evidence, this practical, easy-to-use activity book is for you! Give your students the critical scientific practice today′s science standards require. You’ll discover strategies and activities to effectively engage students in arguments about competing data sets, opposing scientific ideas, applying evidence to support specific claims, and more. 24 ready-to-implement activities drawn from the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences help teachers to: Align lessons to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Engage students in the 8 NGSS science and engineering practices Establish rich, productive classroom discourse Facilitate reading and writing strategies that align to the Common Core State Standards Extend and employ argumentation and modeling strategies Clarify the difference between argumentation and explanation Includes assessment guidance and extension activities. Learn to teach the rational side of science the fun way with this simple and straightforward guide!
Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld and Shared Reasoning (New International Relations)
by Corneliu BjolaThis book deals with the questions of how global governance can and ought to effectively address serious global problems, such as financial instability, military conflicts, distributive injustice and increasing concerns of ecological disasters. Providing a unified theoretical framework, the contributors to this volume utilise argumentation research, broadening the concept by identifying the concerns about agency, lifeworld and shared reasoning that different strands of argumentation research have in common. Furthermore, they develop the concept of argumentative deontology in order to make sense of the processes through which argumentation comes to shape global governance. Empirically, the book demonstrates how ideas define actors’ interests, shape their interactions with each other, and ground intentions for collective action. Normatively, it provides an excellent theoretical platform for unveiling less visible manifestations of power in global politics and thereby improves our understandings of the ethical implications of global ordering. Addressing topical issues such as conflict and inter-civilizational dialogue, decision-making in international regimes and organizations, the World Social Forum, the Women’s Environment and Development Organization and Tobin Tax, this book will be of interest to students and scholars of argumentation theory, globalization and global governance
Arguing Identity and Human Rights: Among Rival Options
by Doug Cloud,Arguing Identity and Human Rights poses open questions about how to best argue for human rights, to help us think through the advantages and trade-offs of different rhetorical strategies, identify rival options, and, ultimately, choose our own paths. Modeling a humane approach to human rights argument, this book offers four deep rhetorical analyses of some of the most vexing and fascinating challenges facing human rights arguers in the United States: How do we want to frame difference in human rights advocacy—are we trying to downplay difference or something else? How can we best answer dismissive responses to human rights arguments? Should we portray people in marginalized categories as having “no choice” about their identity, and what would alternatives look like? What are the possibilities and perils of trying to “afflict” audiences with hegemonic identities to persuade them on human rights issues? Offering clear practical and theoretical implications while resisting easy answers, the book provides a concise introduction to the relationship between identity, discourse, and social change. Designed for both theorists and practitioners, for current and aspiring human rights arguers, this insightful text will be of use to students of rhetoric, argumentation, persuasion, and communication studies more generally, as well as human rights, social activism and social change, political science, sociology, and race and gender studies.
Arguing Religion: A Bishop Speaks at Facebook and Google
by Robert BarronEvery day, millions of people fight about religion. Whether with friends, family, or on social media, we expend lots of energy, lots of sharp words, and lots of strong feelings. But very few know how to have a good religious argument a rational, respectful, and productive exchange of differing views. <P><P> Bishop Robert Barron, one of the leading Catholic figures in the world and among the most active on social media, has enjoyed thousands of fruitful religious arguments. In this book based on talks delivered at Facebook and Google, he explains why religion at its best opens up the searching mind, and how we all believer and unbeliever alike can share better discussions about God.
Arguing Sainthood: Modernity, Psychoanalysis, and Islam
by Katherine Pratt EwingIn Arguing Sainthood, Katherine Pratt Ewing examines Sufi religious meanings and practices in Pakistan and their relation to the Westernizing influences of modernity and the shaping of the postcolonial self. Using both anthropological fieldwork and psychoanalytic theory to critically reinterpret theories of subjectivity, Ewing examines the production of identity in the context of a complex social field of conflicting ideologies and interests.Ewing critiques Eurocentric cultural theorists and Orientalist discourse while also taking issue with expatriate postcolonial thinkers Homi Bhabha and Gayatri Spivak. She challenges the notion of a monolithic Islamic modernity in order to explore the lived realities of individuals, particularly those of Pakistani saints and their followers. By examining the continuities between current Sufi practices and earlier popular practices in the Muslim world, Ewing identifies in the Sufi tradition a reflexive, critical consciousness that has usually been associated with the modern subject. Drawing on her training in clinical and theoretical psychoanalysis as well as her anthropological fieldwork in Lahore, Pakistan, Ewing argues for the value of Lacan in anthropology as she provides the basis for retheorizing postcolonial studies.
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 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 Anthropology: An Introduction to Critical Theories of the Gift
by Karen SykesArguing with Anthropology is a fresh and wholly original guide to key elements in anthropology, which teaches the ability to think, write and argue critically. Using the classic 'question of the gift' as a master-issue for discussion, and drawing on a rich variety of Pacific and global ethnography, it provides a unique course in methods, aims, knowledge, and understanding. The book's highly original hypothetical approach takes gift-theory - the science of obligation and reciprocity - as the paradigm for a virtual enquiry which explores how the anthropological discipline has evolved historically, how it is applied in practice and how it can be argued with critically. By asking students to participate in projected situations and dilemmas, and in arguments about the form and nature of enquiry, it offers working practice of dealing with the obstacles and choices involved in anthropological study. * From an expert teacher whose methods are tried and tested* Comprehensive and fun course ideal for intermediate-level students* Clearly defines the functions of anthropology, and its key theories and arguments* Effectively teaches core study skills for exam success and progressive learning.
Arguing With People
by Michael A. GilbertArguing with People brings developments from the field of Argumentation Theory to bear on critical thinking in a clear and accessible way. This book expands the critical thinking toolkit, and shows how those tools can be applied in the hurly-burly of everyday arguing. Gilbert emphasizes the importance of understanding real arguments, understanding just who you are arguing with, and knowing how to use that information for successful argumentation. Interesting examples and partner exercises are provided to demonstrate tangible ways in which the book's lessons can be applied.
Arguing about Alliances: The Art of Agreement in Military-Pact Negotiations
by Paul PoastWhy do some attempts to conclude alliance treaties end in failure? From the inability of European powers to form an alliance that would stop Hitler in the 1930s, to the present inability of Ukraine to join NATO, states frequently attempt but fail to form alliance treaties. In Arguing about Alliances, Paul Poast sheds new light on the purpose of alliance treaties by recognizing that such treaties come from negotiations, and that negotiations can end in failure.In a book that bridges Stephen Walt's Origins of Alliance and Glenn Snyder's Alliance Politics, two classic works on alliances, Poast identifies two conditions that result in non-agreement: major incompatibilities in the internal war plans of the participants, and attractive alternatives to a negotiated agreement for various parties to the negotiations. As a result, Arguing about Alliances focuses on a group of states largely ignored by scholars: states that have attempted to form alliance treaties but failed. Poast suggests that to explain the outcomes of negotiations, specifically how they can end without agreement, we must pay particular attention to the wartime planning and coordinating functions of alliance treaties. Through his exploration of the outcomes of negotiations from European alliance negotiations between 1815 and 1945, Poast offers a typology of alliance treaty negotiations and establishes what conditions are most likely to stymie the attempt to formalize recognition of common national interests.
Arguing about Disability: Philosophical Perspectives
by Tom Shakespeare Kristjana Kristiansen Simo VehmasDisability 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 Judaism: A Rabbi, a Philosopher and a Revealing Debate
by Peter Cave Dan Cohn-SherbokArguing about Judaism differs from other introductions to Judaism. It is unique, not solely in its engaging dialogues between a Reform rabbi and a humanist, atheist philosopher, but also in its presentation of and challenges to the fundamental religious beliefs of the Jewish heritage and their relevance to today’s Jewish community. The dialogues contain both Jewish narratives and philosophical responses, with topics ranging from the nature of God to controversies over sexual relations, animal welfare and the environment — from antisemitism to the state of Israel and Zionism. Although the rabbi and philosopher argue strongly, clearly enjoying the cut and thrust of debate, they do so with sensitivity, charm and respect, revealing the rich intricacies of the Jewish religion and contemporary Jewish life. While essential reading for those studying Judaism and Jewish history, the book aims to stimulate debate more generally amongst Jews and non-Jews, the religious and the atheist — all those with a general interest in religion and philosophy.
Arguing and Justifying: Assessing the Convention Refugees' Choice of Moment, Motive and Host Country (Research in Migration and Ethnic Relations Series)
by Robert F. BarskyThis is the first book of its kind to address the crucial issue of why people choose to make Convention refugee claims. It represents a substantial and original contribution primarily to the field of refugee studies but also applicable for a broader readership of political science, international studies, sociology, law, history and women’s studies. Furthermore, it theorizes the problems that face refugees by discussing the perception of the possible host countries. The conclusions of the book bear directly upon contemporary issues in refugee studies that suggest refugees move on the basis of (generally) extreme levels of persecution.
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.