在辩论中失去了基调

Danielle Arets
{"title":"在辩论中失去了基调","authors":"Danielle Arets","doi":"10.5117/fep2023.2.003.aret","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"These days, increasing voices are calling for a ban on public debate. Debate is said to increase differences and act as a divisive societal factor. A recent report by the Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau (2022) indicates that most Dutch people are concerned about polarization and the hardening of the political and public debate. In this essay, however, Danielle Arets argues that we should embrace debate; we have lost the ability to disagree appropriately. To revitalize the debate, Arets argues that we need to redesign the public debate and look for ways of deliberation that especially involve the arts.","PeriodicalId":472655,"journal":{"name":"Filosofie & Praktijk","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uit de toon, in het debat\",\"authors\":\"Danielle Arets\",\"doi\":\"10.5117/fep2023.2.003.aret\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"These days, increasing voices are calling for a ban on public debate. Debate is said to increase differences and act as a divisive societal factor. A recent report by the Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau (2022) indicates that most Dutch people are concerned about polarization and the hardening of the political and public debate. In this essay, however, Danielle Arets argues that we should embrace debate; we have lost the ability to disagree appropriately. To revitalize the debate, Arets argues that we need to redesign the public debate and look for ways of deliberation that especially involve the arts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":472655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Filosofie & Praktijk\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Filosofie & Praktijk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5117/fep2023.2.003.aret\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofie & Praktijk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5117/fep2023.2.003.aret","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,要求禁止公开辩论的呼声越来越高。争论据说会增加分歧,成为分裂社会的因素。社会文化规划局(2022)最近的一份报告表明,大多数荷兰人都担心两极分化以及政治和公共辩论的强化。然而,在这篇文章中,Danielle Arets认为我们应该接受辩论;我们已经失去了适当表达不同意见的能力。为了重振辩论,阿雷茨认为,我们需要重新设计公共辩论,并寻找特别涉及艺术的审议方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uit de toon, in het debat
These days, increasing voices are calling for a ban on public debate. Debate is said to increase differences and act as a divisive societal factor. A recent report by the Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau (2022) indicates that most Dutch people are concerned about polarization and the hardening of the political and public debate. In this essay, however, Danielle Arets argues that we should embrace debate; we have lost the ability to disagree appropriately. To revitalize the debate, Arets argues that we need to redesign the public debate and look for ways of deliberation that especially involve the arts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信