Anti-foundationalism in Rawls and Dworkin

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.25162/arsp-2020-0003
Sophie Papaefthmiou
{"title":"Anti-foundationalism in Rawls and Dworkin","authors":"Sophie Papaefthmiou","doi":"10.25162/arsp-2020-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper compares and contrasts the epistemologies of Rawls and Dworkin, both usually presented as either Kantian or pragmatist. It considers in particular the main pragmatist theses underlying their work, namely anti-metaphysics, anti-skepticism, fallibilism and objectivity as conditioned by practice, as well as their account of truth. It then examines an approach which takes Rawls’ epistemology as “anti-foundationalist” and argues that, to the extent that this qualification is connected to deliberative democracy, it should not be accepted without reservation as an adequate account of the views of either philosopher.","PeriodicalId":41477,"journal":{"name":"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie","volume":"83 1","pages":"29-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archiv fur Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25162/arsp-2020-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts the epistemologies of Rawls and Dworkin, both usually presented as either Kantian or pragmatist. It considers in particular the main pragmatist theses underlying their work, namely anti-metaphysics, anti-skepticism, fallibilism and objectivity as conditioned by practice, as well as their account of truth. It then examines an approach which takes Rawls’ epistemology as “anti-foundationalist” and argues that, to the extent that this qualification is connected to deliberative democracy, it should not be accepted without reservation as an adequate account of the views of either philosopher.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
罗尔斯和德沃金的反基础主义
本文对罗尔斯和德沃金的认识论进行了比较和对比,他们通常都是康德主义或实用主义的认识论。它特别考虑了他们工作背后的主要实用主义论点,即反形而上学、反怀疑主义、易错论和受实践制约的客观性,以及他们对真理的描述。然后,它考察了一种将罗尔斯的认识论视为“反基础主义”的方法,并认为,在某种程度上,这种资格与协商民主有关,它不应该毫无保留地被接受为对任何一位哲学家的观点的充分解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Replacing the Persecution Condition for Refugeehood Hanfei: der politische Realismus in der chinesischen Philosophie Gewalt und Legitimation – Grundzüge eines unaufhebbaren Missverhältnisses Mit den Augen eines befangenen Chronisten Why Kelsen’s Basic Norm Does not Include a Transition from Is to Ought
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1