Introduction Part I. The Logic of Sovereignty: 1. The paradox of sovereignty 2. 'Nomos Basileus' 3. Potentiality and law 4. Form of law Threshold Part II. Homo Sacer: 1. Homo sacer 2. The ambivalence of the sacred 3. Sacred life 4. 'Vitae Necisque Potestas' 5. Sovereign body and sacred body 6. The ban and the wolf Threshold Part III. The Camp as Biopolitical Paradigm of the Modern: 1. The politicization of life 2. Biopolitics and the rights of man 3. Life that does not deserve to live 4. 'Politics, or giving form to the life of a people' 5. VP 6. Politicizing death 7. The camp as the 'Nomos' of the modern Threshold Bibliography Index of names.

Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life

How to Do Things With Words

Course Description In this course, we will explore the question of the actual and potential connections between democracy and education. Our focus of attention will be placed on a critical examination of democratic theory and its implications for the civic education roles and contributions of teachers, adult educators, community development practitioners, and community organizers. We will survey and deal critically with a range of competing conceptions of democracy, variously described as classical, republican, liberal, radical, marxist, neomarxist, pragmatist, feminist, populist, pluralist, postmodern, and/or participatory. Using narrative inquiry as a means for illuminating and interpreting contemporary practice, we will analyze the implications of different conceptions of democracy for the practical work of civic education.

Democracy and education.

Emotion and Adaptation

語用論(Pragmatics)を考える

Composition and division

This paper uses argumentation tools to show by means of analyzing nine cases from law and politics how argument strategies using persuasive definitions and quasi-definitions are powerful rhetorical tools of persuasion. By  bringing to lightthe argumentation structure found in these examples, it is shown that definitions and redefinitions can have serious legal and political implications. Persuasive definitions and quasi-definitions are modeled as two distinct strategies for altering the relationship between classification and evaluation of a state of affairs. Persuasive definitions are aimed at modifying the relationship between the definiendum and its referent. In quasi-definitions some characteristics of an entity or event leading to a specific value judgment are selected and made accessible, while other conflicting ones are excluded. Reframing an issue is shown to be related to both strategies.

/pdf/the-importance-and-trickiness-of-definition-strategies-in-52v9pirsuz.pdf

The Importance and Trickiness of Definition Strategies in Legal and Political Argumentation

Argumentation has been mainly concerned with finding or assessing reasons to prove a statement is true or false, but recently there has been some attention paid to the kind of arguments used in deliberative decision-making. Van Gelder (2009, p. 5) contrasts intuitive decision-making, where decisions are made on the basis of what seems right without any systematic review of options, with technical decision-making, where qualitative argumentation is replaced by calculation. He argues (2009, p. 6) that although many important decisions go wrong, deliberative decision-making cannot be replaced by either intuitive or technical decision-making. The aim of this paper is to apply some tools recently developed in argumentation, like argument mapping, that show promise of being helpful to improve both intuitive and technical deliberative decision-making. The traditional technical method of decisionmaking weighs the expected costs of a set of alterABSTRACT

An Argumentation Model of Deliberative Decision-Making

In this paper, we provide a formal logical account of the burden of proof and proof standards in legal reasoning. As opposed to the usual argument-based model we use a hybrid model for Inference to the Best Explanation, which uses stories or explanations as well as arguments. We use examples of real cases to show that our hybrid reasoning model allows for a natural modeling of burdens and standards of proof.

/pdf/burdens-and-standards-of-proof-for-inference-to-the-best-3r7yx0crks.pdf

Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation

Tarello (1980) identified fifteen kinds of arguments used for statutory interpretation, and later, MacCormick and Summers (1991) recognized eleven types of interpretive arguments. Building on this work, the aim of this paper, part of a wider research project, is to formulate argumentation schemes for statutory interpretation. To indicate the direction of this work, an example of one of the schemes is given along with a set of critical questions. Also, a brief indication is given of the extended example used to show how the schemes are to be fitted to the argumentation in a case. In the example scheme below, E represents an expression (word, phrase, sentence) that was used in a document (source, text, statute) D where E can be given more than one interpretation (I1, I2, . . .In) in document D. In addition, E can be shown to be used in setting Si of S1, . . ., S11.

Douglas Walton

Papers

Composition and division

The Importance and Trickiness of Definition Strategies in Legal and Political Argumentation

An Argumentation Model of Deliberative Decision-Making

Burdens and Standards of Proof for Inference to the Best Explanation

Interpretative Argumentation Schemes.