Scott Aikin - Böcker

In the last decade, the familiar problem of the regress of reasons has returned to prominent consideration in epistemology. And with the return of the problem, evaluation of the options available for its solution is begun anew. Reason’s regress problem, roughly put, is that if one has good reasons to believe something, one must have good reason to hold those reasons are good. And for those reasons, one must have further reasons to hold they are good, and so a regress of reasons looms. In this new study, Aikin presents a full case for infinitism as a response to the problem of the regress of reasons. Infinitism is the view that one must have a non-terminating chain of reasons in order to be justified. The most defensible form of infinitism, he argues, is that of a mixed theory – that is, epistemic infinitism must be consistent with and integrate other solutions to the regress problem.

Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement presents an accessible and engaging introduction to the theory of argument, with special emphasis on the way argument works in public political debate.　 The authors develop a view according to which proper argument is necessary for one’s individual cognitive health; this insight is then expanded to the collective health of one’s society.　 Proper argumentation, then, is seen to play a central role in a well-functioning democracy.　 Written in a lively style and filled with examples drawn from the real world of contemporary politics, and questions following each chapter to encourage discussion, Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement reads like a guide for the participation in, and maintenance of, modern democracy. An excellent student resource for courses in critical thinking, political philosophy, and related fields, Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement is an important contribution to reasoned debate.

In the last decade, the familiar problem of the regress of reasons has returned to prominent consideration in epistemology. And with the return of the problem, evaluation of the options available for its solution is begun anew. Reason’s regress problem, roughly put, is that if one has good reasons to believe something, one must have good reason to hold those reasons are good. And for those reasons, one must have further reasons to hold they are good, and so a regress of reasons looms. In this new study, Aikin presents a full case for infinitism as a response to the problem of the regress of reasons. Infinitism is the view that one must have a non-terminating chain of reasons in order to be justified. The most defensible form of infinitism, he argues, is that of a mixed theory – that is, epistemic infinitism must be consistent with and integrate other solutions to the regress problem.

The recent revival of interest in pragmatism has reintroduced into mainstream philosophy the insights and arguments of great American philosophers such as C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey. But it has also led to the use of the term 'pragmatism' in a huge variety of contexts, such that students and readers can find this fascinating subject confusing. Pragmatism: A Guide for the Perplexed seeks to dispel some of the ambiguity surrounding the term 'pragmatism'. The book offers a clear and thorough account of this key philosophical movement. Thematically structured, it lays out the historical development and surveys the key thinkers. Crucially, it concentrates on the ways in which pragmatists, both contemporary and historical, have attempted to address some of the most important problems in philosophy. Geared towards the specific requirements of students who need to reach a sound understanding of pragmatism, the book serves as an ideal companion to study of this most important and influential of movements.

This is a student's guide to the historical context, key thinkers and central themes of pragmatism, a concept central to American philosophy.The recent revival of interest in pragmatism has reintroduced into mainstream philosophy the insights and arguments of great American philosophers such as C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey. But it has also led to the use of the term 'pragmatism' in a huge variety of contexts, such that students and readers can find this fascinating subject confusing. "Pragmatism: A Guide for the Perplexed" seeks to dispel some of the ambiguity surrounding the term 'pragmatism'.The book offers a clear and thorough account of this key philosophical movement. Thematically structured, it lays out the historical development and surveys the key thinkers. Crucially, it concentrates on the ways in which pragmatists, both contemporary and historical, have attempted to address some of the most important problems in philosophy. Geared towards the specific requirements of students who need to reach a sound understanding of pragmatism, the book serves as an ideal companion to study of this most important and influential of movements."Continuum's Guides for the Perplexed" are clear, concise and accessible introductions to thinkers, writers and subjects that students and readers can find especially challenging - or indeed downright bewildering. Concentrating specifically on what it is that makes the subject difficult to grasp, these books explain and explore key themes and ideas, guiding the reader towards a thorough understanding of demanding material.

The Routledge Handbook of Argumentation Theory offers 43 chapters—written specifically for this volume by a team of leading international scholars—that survey a wide spectrum of research on the nature, purpose, and promise of argument and the associated practice of argumentation. Each chapter provides a state-of-the-art survey to help readers understand and engage with the field’s main ideas and problems.The book is split into two parts:Part I covers orienting approaches in argumentation studies.Part II focuses on the main debates in argumentation theory.The Handbook illustrates how different disciplines contribute to argumentation theory, integrating contributions from logic, epistemology, social psychology, political science, communication, rhetoric, and other fields. This volume thus provides researchers and students with a picture of the diversity and depth to the work in argumentation theory today. Throughout, it clarifies complex questions and methods in this evolving field of study. And references at the end of chapters and a comprehensive index at the back of the book provide readers with central resources for further work in this important area of research.

Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason presents an accessible and engaging introduction to the theory of argument, with special emphasis on the way argument works in public political debate. The authors develop a view according to which proper argument is necessary for one’s individual cognitive health; this insight is then expanded to the collective health of one’s society. Proper argumentation, then, is seen to play a central role in a well-functioning democracy.Written in a lively style and filled with examples drawn from the real world of contemporary politics, and questions following each chapter to encourage discussion, Why We Argue (And How We Should) reads like a guide for the participation in, and maintenance of, modern democracy. An excellent student resource for courses in critical thinking, political philosophy, and related fields, Why We Argue (And How We Should) is an important contribution to reasoned debate.What’s New in the Second Edition: Updated examples throughout the book, including examples from the 2016 U.S. election and first years of the Trump presidency; Expanded coverage of dialectical fallacies, including coverage of new types of fallacies and of sites where such fallacies thrive (e.g., cable news, social media); Revised For Further Thought questions and definitions of Key Terms, included at the end of each chapter; The addition of five new chapters: Deep Disagreement Argument by Analogy Argument between the Ads The Owl of Minerva (or weaponizing metalanguage) Argumentative Responsibility and Repair.

Why We Argue (And How We Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in an Age of Unreason presents an accessible and engaging introduction to the theory of argument, with special emphasis on the way argument works in public political debate. The authors develop a view according to which proper argument is necessary for one’s individual cognitive health; this insight is then expanded to the collective health of one’s society. Proper argumentation, then, is seen to play a central role in a well-functioning democracy.Written in a lively style and filled with examples drawn from the real world of contemporary politics, and questions following each chapter to encourage discussion, Why We Argue (And How We Should) reads like a guide for the participation in, and maintenance of, modern democracy. An excellent student resource for courses in critical thinking, political philosophy, and related fields, Why We Argue (And How We Should) is an important contribution to reasoned debate.What’s New in the Second Edition: Updated examples throughout the book, including examples from the 2016 U.S. election and first years of the Trump presidency; Expanded coverage of dialectical fallacies, including coverage of new types of fallacies and of sites where such fallacies thrive (e.g., cable news, social media); Revised For Further Thought questions and definitions of Key Terms, included at the end of each chapter; The addition of five new chapters: Deep Disagreement Argument by Analogy Argument between the Ads The Owl of Minerva (or weaponizing metalanguage) Argumentative Responsibility and Repair.

For anyone approaching the Encheiridion of Epictetus for the first time, this book provides a comprehensive guide to understanding a complex philosophical text. Including a full translation and clear explanatory commentaries, Epictetus’s ‘Encheiridion’ introduces readers to a hugely influential work of Stoic philosophy. Scott Aikin and William O. Stephens unravel the core themes of Stoic ethics found within this ancient handbook. Focusing on the core themes of self-control, seeing things as they are, living according to nature, owning one’s roles and fulfilling the responsibilities that those roles entail, the authors elucidate the extremely challenging ideas in Epictetus’s brisk chapters. Divided into five distinct parts, this book provides readers with:- A new translation of the Encheiridion by William O. Stephens. - A new introduction to ancient Stoicism, its system of concepts, and the ancient figures who shaped it.- A fresh treatment of the notorious and counter-intuitive ‘Stoic paradoxes’.- An accessible overview of the origin and historical context of the Encheiridion.- Detailed commentaries on each chapter of the Encheiridion that clarify its recurring themes and highlight their interconnections.- Careful attention to the presentation of the arguments embedded in Epictetus’s aphoristic style.- A thoughtful discussion of serious criticisms of Epictetus’s Stoicism and replies to these objections.Written with clarity and authority, Epictetus’s ‘Encheiridion’ provides a foundation from which readers can understand this important text and engage with the fundamental questions of Stoic philosophy and ethics. This guide will aid teachers of Epictetus, students encountering Stoicism for the first time, and readers seeking a greater understanding of Stoic ethics.

For anyone approaching the Encheiridion of Epictetus for the first time, this book provides a comprehensive guide to understanding a complex philosophical text. Including a full translation and clear explanatory commentaries, Epictetus’s ‘Encheiridion’ introduces readers to a hugely influential work of Stoic philosophy. Scott Aikin and William O. Stephens unravel the core themes of Stoic ethics found within this ancient handbook. Focusing on the core themes of self-control, seeing things as they are, living according to nature, owning one’s roles and fulfilling the responsibilities that those roles entail, the authors elucidate the extremely challenging ideas in Epictetus’s brisk chapters. Divided into five distinct parts, this book provides readers with:- A new translation of the Encheiridion by William O. Stephens. - A new introduction to ancient Stoicism, its system of concepts, and the ancient figures who shaped it.- A fresh treatment of the notorious and counter-intuitive ‘Stoic paradoxes’.- An accessible overview of the origin and historical context of the Encheiridion.- Detailed commentaries on each chapter of the Encheiridion that clarify its recurring themes and highlight their interconnections.- Careful attention to the presentation of the arguments embedded in Epictetus’s aphoristic style.- A thoughtful discussion of serious criticisms of Epictetus’s Stoicism and replies to these objections.Written with clarity and authority, Epictetus’s ‘Encheiridion’ provides a foundation from which readers can understand this important text and engage with the fundamental questions of Stoic philosophy and ethics. This guide will aid teachers of Epictetus, students encountering Stoicism for the first time, and readers seeking a greater understanding of Stoic ethics.

This book analyses the straw man fallacy and its deployment in philosophical reasoning. While commonly invoked in both academic dialogue and public discourse, it has not until now received the attention it deserves as a rhetorical device. Scott Aikin and John Casey propose that straw manning essentially consists in expressing distorted representations of one’s critical interlocutor. To this end, the straw man comprises three dialectical forms, and not only the one that is usually suggested: the straw man, the weak man and the hollow man. Moreover, they demonstrate that straw manning is unique among fallacies as it has no particular logical form in itself, because it is an instance of inappropriate meta-argument, or argument about arguments. They discuss the importance of the onlooking audience to the successful deployment of the straw man, reasoning that the existence of an audience complicates the dialectical boundaries of argument.Providing a lively, provocative and thorough analysis of the straw man fallacy, this book will appeal to postgraduates and researchers alike, working in a range of fields including fallacies, rhetoric, argumentation theory and informal logic.

This book analyses the straw man fallacy and its deployment in philosophical reasoning. While commonly invoked in both academic dialogue and public discourse, it has not until now received the attention it deserves as a rhetorical device. Scott Aikin and John Casey propose that straw manning essentially consists in expressing distorted representations of one’s critical interlocutor. To this end, the straw man comprises three dialectical forms, and not only the one that is usually suggested: the straw man, the weak man and the hollow man. Moreover, they demonstrate that straw manning is unique among fallacies as it has no particular logical form in itself, because it is an instance of inappropriate meta-argument, or argument about arguments. They discuss the importance of the onlooking audience to the successful deployment of the straw man, reasoning that the existence of an audience complicates the dialectical boundaries of argument.Providing a lively, provocative and thorough analysis of the straw man fallacy, this book will appeal to postgraduates and researchers alike, working in a range of fields including fallacies, rhetoric, argumentation theory and informal logic.

Work on the norms of belief in epistemology regularly starts with two touchstone essays: W.K. Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" and William James's "The Will to Believe." Discussing the central themes from these seminal essays, Evidentialism and the Will to Believe explores the history of the ideas governing evidentialism. As well as Clifford's argument from the examples of the shipowner, the consequences of credulity and his defence against skepticism, this book tackles James's conditions for a genuine option and the structure of the will to believe case as a counter-example to Clifford's evidentialism. Exploring the question of whether James's case successfully counters Clifford's evidentialist rule for belief, this study captures the debate between those who hold that one should proportion belief to evidence and those who hold that the evidentialist norm is too restrictive. More than a sustained explication of the essays, it also surveys recent epistemological arguments to evidentialism. But it is by bringing Clifford and James into fruitful conversation for the first time that this study presents a clearer history of the issues and provides an important reconstruction of the notion of evidence in contemporary epistemology.