{"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}
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.