The research on the possible representational strategies of philosophical arguments aims at providing the structures for thematic and systematic (rather than historical) presentation of an area of theoretical research and argumentation. The representational technique of the database can be used for representing discourses in other theoretical fields and topics. In Elenchos this method of representing theoretical argumentation focuses on the relation between the different principles and premises from which philosophers have argued for the justification of democracy. The original philosophical sources where the presented arguments are defended are also available to the user. These sources and links to original works help in building a parallel understanding of the arguments in their philosophical context, thus enriching the educational value of the whole project. Finally, the user is also provided with a philosophical glossary on the concepts used in the presented arguments and sources.
The arguments concerning the justification of Democracy that are presented here are not extracted from a single original philosophical work but they represent three main arguments by means of which philosophers have given justification for democracy (or argued against it). This classification illustrates and clarifies the strategies followed by philosophers and political theorists in this area.
The Archelogos Team is collaborating with Dr Robertson's team and Dr Helen Pain's team in the Artificial Intelligence Department, Edinburgh University, in order to combine the Archelogos Argument-Analysis methodology with argumentation-software programmes. We also collaborate with the Centre des Recherches Philologiques, University of Lille, and Professor Andre Laks, on the incorporation of the exegetical tradition into the argumentation format. Next Page