Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us

Product Information

We’ve all wrestled with questions like these, whether we’re shouting at a relative across the dinner table, quarreling with old classmates on social media, or chatting late into the night with friends. Many people give kneejerk answers that roughly align with their broader belief system, but flounder when asked for their reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate—especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide. Allows us to not only interrogate our own views, but to persuade others using reason and optimism. A must read’ Aaron Bastani, author of Fully Automated Luxury Communism An Interrogation of Beauty: A Review of "Beautiful World, Where Are You" By Sally Rooney What we have in "Beautiful World, Where Are You," is a novel from a growing writer coming to terms with her recognition. PDF / EPUB File Name: Arguing_for_a_Better_World_-_Arianne_Shahvisi.pdf, Arguing_for_a_Better_World_-_Arianne_Shahvisi.epub

Arguing for a Better World cuts right to the heart of these tensions, with the aim of demonstrating the importance of rigorous definitions and distinctions, revealing the arguments that break the stalemates, and equipping listeners with the tools to identify and defend their positions. Drawing on Shahvisi’s work as a philosopher, and using live controversies, well-known case studies, and personal anecdotes, this audiobook reveals and analyses the power relations that shape our social world, and offers powerful ways to challenge them.

Arianne Shahvisi's book cuts through the noise with an eminently sensible discussion of key contemporary 'culture war' issues. -- ALISON PHIPPS, author of Me, Not You: The Trouble with Mainstream Feminism Divide and conquer so the old adage goes. An effective strategy but only in world with people willing to concede to interpreting life through a low resolution, binary lens. I suppose it’s natural for a career academic to become transfixed on anecdotal information to support a preconceived mindset versus challenging assumptions, considering different perspectives, and removing any and all nuance, but it makes her arguments general and weak kneed.

The Good Fight: An Interview with Haki R. Madhubuti on "Taught By Women" "Taught by Women" is a culmination of my saying to all these women, … thank you, that you did not do this for me, you did this for us, you did it for the nation. Join Dr Arianne Shahvisi, Senior Lecturer in Ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS), for the launch of her new book, Arguing for a Better World. Arianne will be joined in conversation by Professor Bobbie Farsides, Professor of Clinical and Biomedical Ethics at BSMS, for readings from the book and a discussion on some of the topics. Learning to distinguish arguments that reveal (the potential for) unintended consequences we’d rather avoid and arguments that reveal worthwhile ways to improve things, from baseless assumptions, personal preferences and ideologically polarized points of view, is a skill-set we would do well to develop and integrate into our institutions, organizations, interpersonal relations and intra-psychic worlds. Is it sexist to say that “men are trash”? Can white people be victims of racism? Do we bear any individual responsibility for climate change? Political progressives like to think they have the advantage of reason over their right-wing counterparts, who often don’t seem to know what the hell they are talking about. Ask someone on the radical right to define wokeness or critical race theory or white privilege, or democracy for that matter, and all you are likely to get is a steaming pile of verbal mush dumped on social justice issues one would have thought long settled. It’s as though they think that line in the Pledge of Allegiance about “liberty and justice for all” was written by a socialist. (Well, in fact it was written by a socialist.) But progressives, too, can be mealy-mouthed when it comes to articulating the concepts held dear to their cause; they are no less prone to fumbling the reasons that make their cause the right cause for everyone and the only cause for democracy.

Get in touch

Men are trash ถือว่าเหยียดเพศมั้ย, คนขาวเป็นฝ่ายถูก racist ได้มั้ย, ทำไมไม่ all live matter ฯลฯ แต่อยากอ่านข้อโต้แย้งที่ประเทืองปัญญากว่าที่คนเถียงกันบนเนต เล่มนี้จัดไป Men are trash คือต้องการชี้ให้เห็นความเชื่อมโยงระหว่าง trashness กับ masculinity การพยายามไปทำให้วลีนี้ซอฟต์ลง (เช่นใช้คำว่า some men) เลยเป็นอะไรที่หลงประเด็น เพราะมันยิ่งไปทำให้ความรุนแรงด้วยเหตุแห่งเพศกลายเป็นเรื่องความเลวส่วนบุคคลไป แถมการพูดว่า "ผู้ชายบางคนเป็นคนเลว" มันก็ go without saying สุดๆ เหมือนบอก 1+1 = 2 พูดไปคงไม่โดนด่าแหละ แต่ก็ไร้สาระจนไม่รู้จะพูดไปทำไม Arguing for the better world” is the title. Yet, the author does not define what “better world” is. Which would be the absolute basic requirement for writing a book with a title like that. Which turned the entire book into “a guide to household virtue signalling”. If the author would look for genuine change, they would define the goal. Without a logical goal, any action becomes a meaningless virtue signalling. This brilliant and very enjoyable book brings cooling clarity and patient empathy to the noise and heat of today's so-called 'Culture Wars'. This is insightful explication at its best, essential reading for anyone engaged with many of today's most pressing public arguments -- Priyamvada Gopal, Author of INSURGENT EMPIRE

Polarization is prolific and its consequences increasingly clear. Now, more than ever, we need more sophisticated, high resolution ways to pursue truthfulness, extract the essential value lying at the heart of different experiences and points of view, and synergize distributed wisdom to make smarter decisions together. We need each other. We cannot navigate this complexity effectively, alone. In Arguing for a Better World , philosopher Arianne Shahvisi draws on examples from everyday life to show us how to work through a set of thorny moral questions, equipping us to not only identify our positions but to carefully defend them. Many of us know what we think about inequality, but flounder when asked for our reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate - especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide. But living in echo chambers blunts our thinking, and if we can't persuade others, we have little hope of collectively bringing about change. The circular logic of the argument is the key to plausible deniability inserted in every chapter of the book. The card “oh, this is a reverse racism, not racism”. Because there are always a lot of stereotypical groups above in the hierarchy of suffering. An antidote to division: a book that arms you with the ability to build good arguments and find a path through conflict and confusion.

Allows us to not only interrogate our own views, but to persuade others using reason and optimism. A must read' Aaron Bastani, author of Fully Automated Luxury Communism Raises important questions, but seems fixated on everything anecdotally wrong in the world excessively, akin to pharmaceutical companies inflating the dangers of curses or disease, or defense contractors exaggerating and clamoring for war. Seems to add fuel to a fire and increase polarity and divisiveness intentionally to validate her perspective, versus actually developing a framework to build meaningful coalitions that can be true change agents.