Titlebook: How Philosophers Argue; An Adversarial Colla Fernando Leal,Hubert Marraud Book 2022 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under

BIPED

變形

Description of the Method Followedfew concepts are added to tie up the matter of questions with the fundamental concepts of standpoint and difference of opinion. Then the role of questioning within the ideal model of a critical discussion is tackled. Finally, all these developments are used to present an overview of the Russell–Copleston debate to be analysed in Chaps. .–..

全國性

Analysis of Segment III: Discussion of Copleston’s Religious Argumentopleston starts with a reasonably clear example of what he calls religious experience, Russell keeps substituting different kinds of experience which appear to be quite unlike that intended by Copleston. The debate is never really engaged in the original terms and slowly shifts towards the moral argument.

小蟲

子女

Obliterate

GRILL

How Philosophers Argue978-3-030-85368-6Series ISSN 1566-7650 Series E-ISSN 2215-1907

Hirsutism

Introduction,tage point of two different argumentation theories, pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, 2018) and argument dialectics (Marraud, 2020c); next to justify why we chose precisely that text; and finally, to explain briefly the way in which we performed the analysis, namely by what is called "adversarial collaboration" (Kahneman, 2013).

清楚說話

Complement

Analysis of Segment V: Summing-Up of the Arguments but dwells especially on the metaphysical argument, which he considers the strongest. He also objects to the intrusion of formal mathematical logic in a metaphysical issue. Russell for his part rejects this objection and repeats the main arguments against Copleston’s position.