Closing a conversation is always a personal decision, not procedure

Evidence

A radical reading of Wittgenstein needs to emphasize - in the way Cavell does in his critique of JtawIs27 - that bringing a conversation to a dose is always a personal choice, a tkdsion which cannot be simply presented as mere application of procedures and justified as the only move that we could make in those circumstances. — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 348

Categorization

• DEFINE: Contrasts a radical reading of Wittgenstein (decision/responsibility) against a complacent pragmatist reading like Rorty’s.
• XREF: Echoes Mouffe’s Schmittian insistence on the ineliminable decision at the heart of the political. — connects to: Objections during closing arguments are legal but almost never made out of courtesy — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 2291; Closing a legal debate is a distinct performance, not discursive failure — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular:…, 1231

Broader Connections

• Closing a legal debate is a distinct performance, not discursive failure #expands (0.75) — Talal Asad, Formations of the Secular, 1231
• Objections during closing arguments are legal but almost never made out of courtesy #qualifies (0.72) — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action, 2291