z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Philosophy, Adversarial Argumentation, and Embattled Reason
Author(s) -
Phyllis Rooney
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
informal logic
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.368
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 2293-734X
pISSN - 0824-2577
DOI - 10.22329/il.v30i3.3032
Subject(s) - argumentation theory , metaphor , adversarial system , argument (complex analysis) , persuasion , epistemology , narrative , philosophy , sociology , aesthetics , law , political science , linguistics , biochemistry , chemistry
Philosophy’s adversarial argumentation style is often noted as a factor contributing to the low numbers of women in philosophy. I argue that there is a level of adversariality peculiar to philosophy that merits specific feminist examination, yet doesn’t assume controversial gender differences claims. The dominance of the argument-as-war metaphor is not warranted, since this metaphor misconstrues the epistemic role of good argument as a tool of rational persuasion. This metaphor is entangled with the persisting narrative of embattled reason, which, in turn, is linked to the sexism-informed narrative of the “man of reason” continually warding off or battling “feminine” unreason.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here