Philosophy of Globalization最新文献_第2页

Koselleck—Foucault: The Birth and Death of Philosophy of History 科塞列克-福柯:《历史哲学的生与死

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-030

E. Palti

According to Reinhart Koselleck, the period he calls Sattelzeit, which spans from 1730 through 1850, witnessed a crucial conceptual transformation. It was associated with a new, ‘modern’ way of experiencing temporality, which in turn gave rise to the emergence of the concept of History as a singular collective noun and, consequently, to the philosophies of history. Koselleck’s perspective converges, besides, with Michel Foucault’s view in The Order of Things, in which Foucault also remarked on the great conceptual break that occurred around 1800 and gave rise to the emergence of what he called the ‘Age of History’. However, our attempt at matching Koselleck’s Begriffsgeschichte with Foucault’s archaeological perspective will also reveal why the former is not yet sufficiently attentive to the diversity of the modes of conceiving of temporality during the four centuries that modernity spans. Lastly, it will allow us to better understand what was the intellectual ground on which the philosophies of history were founded, and also how it eventually became undermined, along with the concept of temporality that was at its basis. I am always terrified when I hear in a few words a whole nation or a time, for what a great multitude of differences does not comprehend the word nation, or the middle ages or antiquity and the modern epoch! (Johann Gottfried Herder) Reinhart Koselleck’s concept of Sattelzeit has become an inevitable point of reference whenever one seeks to understand the origin of modernity from the perspective of intellectual history. It offers a highly suggestive view of the great conceptual transformation produced between 1750 and 1850—the period he calls Sattelzeit. According to Koselleck, this conceptual transformation was closely associated with a given way of experiencing temporality, which gave rise to the emergence of the concept of History, as a singular collective noun. As he shows, that concept would have been incomprehensible before 1750. To speak of ‘History’ without further ado, as if it were a kind of macrosubject, would have been simply unintelligible for a person of the fifteenth or even the seventeenth century. The emergence of the philosophies of history was the consequence of this conceptual transformation, as the two were closely tied: as HeinElías Palti, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes (Argentina) OpenAccess. © 2018 Elías Palti, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-030 Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/27/19 4:04 PM rich Köster then said, “History means the same as historical theory or philosophy of history or as the logic of history” (quoted in Koselleck 2006, p. 74). Historical philosophy thus has a precise historical-conceptual basis, and becomes meaningful only within that given intellectual configuration; it has no meaning outside of it. In short, what this reveals is the contingent nature o

“经验空间”与“期望视界”之间的递进距离决定了历史时间的加速

{"title":"Koselleck—Foucault: The Birth and Death of Philosophy of History","authors":"E. Palti","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-030","url":null,"abstract":"According to Reinhart Koselleck, the period he calls Sattelzeit, which spans from 1730 through 1850, witnessed a crucial conceptual transformation. It was associated with a new, ‘modern’ way of experiencing temporality, which in turn gave rise to the emergence of the concept of History as a singular collective noun and, consequently, to the philosophies of history. Koselleck’s perspective converges, besides, with Michel Foucault’s view in The Order of Things, in which Foucault also remarked on the great conceptual break that occurred around 1800 and gave rise to the emergence of what he called the ‘Age of History’. However, our attempt at matching Koselleck’s Begriffsgeschichte with Foucault’s archaeological perspective will also reveal why the former is not yet sufficiently attentive to the diversity of the modes of conceiving of temporality during the four centuries that modernity spans. Lastly, it will allow us to better understand what was the intellectual ground on which the philosophies of history were founded, and also how it eventually became undermined, along with the concept of temporality that was at its basis. I am always terrified when I hear in a few words a whole nation or a time, for what a great multitude of differences does not comprehend the word nation, or the middle ages or antiquity and the modern epoch! (Johann Gottfried Herder) Reinhart Koselleck’s concept of Sattelzeit has become an inevitable point of reference whenever one seeks to understand the origin of modernity from the perspective of intellectual history. It offers a highly suggestive view of the great conceptual transformation produced between 1750 and 1850—the period he calls Sattelzeit. According to Koselleck, this conceptual transformation was closely associated with a given way of experiencing temporality, which gave rise to the emergence of the concept of History, as a singular collective noun. As he shows, that concept would have been incomprehensible before 1750. To speak of ‘History’ without further ado, as if it were a kind of macrosubject, would have been simply unintelligible for a person of the fifteenth or even the seventeenth century. The emergence of the philosophies of history was the consequence of this conceptual transformation, as the two were closely tied: as HeinElías Palti, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes (Argentina) OpenAccess. © 2018 Elías Palti, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-030 Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/27/19 4:04 PM rich Köster then said, “History means the same as historical theory or philosophy of history or as the logic of history” (quoted in Koselleck 2006, p. 74). Historical philosophy thus has a precise historical-conceptual basis, and becomes meaningful only within that given intellectual configuration; it has no meaning outside of it. In short, what this reveals is the contingent nature o","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125321160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Globalization as a Symbolic Form: Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Form as the Basis for a Theory of Globalization 全球化作为一种象征形式:恩斯特·卡西尔的象征形式哲学作为全球化理论的基础

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-028

Lucas von Ramin

: The aim of this paper is to investigate and problematize the present status of theories of globalization. Because of the actual diversity of these theories, a philosophical definition must be able to include this diversity without becom-ing meaningless. This paper claims that Ernst Cassirer ’ s philosophy of culture — especially his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923 – 1929) — is particularly suitable for providing a uniform access. The first part therefore examines an understanding of such symbolic forms; it shows on the one hand the problems of classical theories, and on the other hand the advantage of a functional access of cultural production, provided through the concept of Cassirer ’ s elaboration of the conditions of possibility of culture and meaning. The paper then identifies the different aspects of globalization as a symbolic form, including the way it became a picture of the world, changed the understandings of space and time, is an inter-pretive paradigm and myth, and finally has consequences for the construction of subjectivity and identity. In a summarizing section, the paper highlights the paradoxical structure of globalization as its constituent moment. With the concept of symbolic forms, this awareness of contingency can be understood as a specific way of comprehending, related to our time and its cultural processing and man-aging strategies. In conclusion, there is much to suggest that the concept of globalization should be treated as a world image. Only then can one understand why globalization has become a symbol of our time: on the one hand, it occupies itself with universalistic claims; on the other, it is permeated by particular anxiet-ies. It has become difficult to escape the concept of globalization. Not only does it consistently shape the media and academic discourse — our lives are also directly affected by the consequences of globalization. However, more detailed inquiries reveal that the phenomena to which globalization relates vary widely. This is true for everyday use, as well as for scientific use: a uniform definition of globalization does not exist. Therefore, the aim cannot be to search for a unique definition or something that all things meant by globalization have

本文的目的是对全球化理论的现状进行调查并提出问题。由于这些理论的实际多样性，一个哲学定义必须能够包括这种多样性而不会变得毫无意义。本文认为，恩斯特·卡西尔的文化哲学，特别是他的象征形式哲学(1923 - 1929)，特别适合提供一个统一的途径。因此，第一部分考察了对这些符号形式的理解;它一方面揭示了经典理论的问题，另一方面通过卡西尔对文化和意义的可能性条件的阐述，揭示了文化生产的功能性途径的优势。然后，本文确定了全球化作为一种象征形式的不同方面，包括它成为世界图景的方式，改变了对空间和时间的理解，是一种解释范式和神话，并最终对主体性和身份的建构产生了影响。在总结部分，本文强调了全球化的悖论结构作为其构成时刻。在符号形式的概念下，这种偶然性意识可以被理解为一种特定的理解方式，与我们的时代及其文化处理和管理策略有关。总之，有很多证据表明，全球化的概念应该被视为一种世界形象。只有这样，我们才能理解为什么全球化已经成为我们这个时代的一个象征:一方面，它被普遍主义的主张所占据;另一方面，它被特定的焦虑所渗透。要逃避全球化的概念已经变得很困难。全球化不仅持续塑造着媒体和学术话语，我们的生活也直接受到全球化后果的影响。然而，更详细的调查显示，全球化所涉及的现象差别很大。这不仅适用于日常使用，也适用于科学使用:全球化的统一定义并不存在。因此，其目的不可能是寻找一个独特的定义或全球化所意味着的所有事物都具有的东西

{"title":"Globalization as a Symbolic Form: Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Form as the Basis for a Theory of Globalization","authors":"Lucas von Ramin","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-028","url":null,"abstract":": The aim of this paper is to investigate and problematize the present status of theories of globalization. Because of the actual diversity of these theories, a philosophical definition must be able to include this diversity without becom-ing meaningless. This paper claims that Ernst Cassirer ’ s philosophy of culture — especially his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923 – 1929) — is particularly suitable for providing a uniform access. The first part therefore examines an understanding of such symbolic forms; it shows on the one hand the problems of classical theories, and on the other hand the advantage of a functional access of cultural production, provided through the concept of Cassirer ’ s elaboration of the conditions of possibility of culture and meaning. The paper then identifies the different aspects of globalization as a symbolic form, including the way it became a picture of the world, changed the understandings of space and time, is an inter-pretive paradigm and myth, and finally has consequences for the construction of subjectivity and identity. In a summarizing section, the paper highlights the paradoxical structure of globalization as its constituent moment. With the concept of symbolic forms, this awareness of contingency can be understood as a specific way of comprehending, related to our time and its cultural processing and man-aging strategies. In conclusion, there is much to suggest that the concept of globalization should be treated as a world image. Only then can one understand why globalization has become a symbol of our time: on the one hand, it occupies itself with universalistic claims; on the other, it is permeated by particular anxiet-ies. It has become difficult to escape the concept of globalization. Not only does it consistently shape the media and academic discourse — our lives are also directly affected by the consequences of globalization. However, more detailed inquiries reveal that the phenomena to which globalization relates vary widely. This is true for everyday use, as well as for scientific use: a uniform definition of globalization does not exist. Therefore, the aim cannot be to search for a unique definition or something that all things meant by globalization have","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123207674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Frontmatter

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-fm

引用次数: 0

Sustainable Intergenerational Justice and its Ends 可持续代际正义及其目的

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-013

I. Franco

引用次数: 1

Where is History Heading? Concerning the Idea of Progress 历史走向何方?关于进步的观念

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-031

A. Ratto

: In recent times, the question of the sense of history, the future and what is to come seems to have become an obsolete issue. The aim of this paper is to assess, in light of a series of considerations about the idea of ‘ progress ’ , the possibilities of restoring this question in the context of discussions in the field of the philosophy of history, which have relegated these kinds of issues to the background and have confined specialists to the area of the epistemology of history or literary theory.

最近，关于历史、未来和未来的问题似乎已经成为一个过时的问题。本文的目的是根据对“进步”概念的一系列考虑，评估在历史哲学领域讨论的背景下恢复这个问题的可能性，这些讨论已经将这类问题降级到背景中，并将专家限制在历史认识论或文学理论领域。

引用次数: 1

Complex Citizenship and Globalization 复杂的公民身份与全球化

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-003

Alejandro Meraz

This chapter reflects upon the importance the notion of citizenship has acquired in the context of globalization. I will defend the idea that the citizen and his or her actions correspond to the political domain; specifically, in a way that confronts the problem of social order. To accomplish my objective, I have divided the chapter into three parts: a) I will define the idea of the citizen inherited from the Enlightenment; b) I will present an idea of complex citizenship and suggest why we should consider it as an alternative; and c) I will offer an interpretation designed to understand political actions from the perspective of complex citizenship.

这一章反映了在全球化背景下公民概念的重要性。我将捍卫公民及其行为与政治领域相对应的观点;具体来说，以一种面对社会秩序问题的方式。为了达到我的目的，我将这一章分为三个部分:a)我将定义继承自启蒙运动的公民观念;b)我将提出一个复杂公民身份的概念，并建议为什么我们应该考虑将其作为一种选择;c)我将提供一种旨在从复杂公民身份的角度理解政治行为的解释。

引用次数: 0

Who Are the Subjects of Justice in a Globalized World? From the ‘Unidimensional Identity’ to the ‘Diversity of Identities’ 谁是全球化世界中的正义主体?从“单一性身份”到“身份多样性”

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-012

A. R. Mendez

: This article states that the idea of national citizenship, bound to rights and duties circumscribed to a State, is no longer fit to reflect upon the political challenges of a globalizing world. Instead, I argue in favor of the ‘ diversity of identities ’ as a ‘ political heuristic ’ that offers an alternative frame to the question about who is the subject of justice. Our current understanding of the political and social action lacks of something: the concept of a citizen that we inherit from Modernity — the citizen as the subject of rights and duties — doesn ’ t let us explain its current dynamics in a globalizing world. Problems such as migration, refugees and contemporary social movements, among others, have led us to problematize two ideas associated with that concept: a) citizenship is defined based on exclusively national rights and duties, that is, those which are circumscribed to a politically and geographically well limited territory; and b) a State ’ s citizens are the only subjects for whom justice is understood as the equal distribution of those rights and duties. But the paradigms of national citizenship and just distribution are being undermined by globalization ’ s dynamics, since we are shown that their effects are transna-tional and that the expressions against these effects can also have a global character. This context rushes us to find new forms of understanding for those transformations, as well as the political action of people. To meet this challenge, this work argues in favor of the idea of the ‘ diversity of identities ’ as a way to understand people close to their concrete experiences of injustice, and as a ‘ political heuristic ’ that lets us offer an alternative frame to national citizenship as an answer to the question about who are the subjects of justice in a globalizing world.

:该条指出，受限于一个国家的权利和义务约束的国家公民的观念已不再适合反映全球化世界的政治挑战。相反，我认为“身份的多样性”是一种“政治启发式”，它为谁是正义主体的问题提供了另一种框架。我们目前对政治和社会行动的理解缺乏一些东西:我们从现代性中继承的公民概念-公民作为权利和义务的主体-不能让我们解释其在全球化世界中的当前动态。诸如移徙、难民和当代社会运动等问题使我们对与这一概念有关的两个观念产生疑问:a)公民身份的界定完全基于国家的权利和义务，即局限于政治和地理上很有限的领土;(b)一个国家的公民是唯一将正义理解为这些权利和义务的平等分配的主体。但是，国家公民身份和公平分配的范例正在被全球化的动力所破坏，因为我们看到，它们的影响是跨国的，反对这些影响的表达也可以具有全球特征。这种背景促使我们为这些转变以及人们的政治行动找到新的理解形式。为了迎接这一挑战，本著作支持“身份多样性”的观点，认为它是一种理解接近其具体不公正经历的人的方式，也是一种“政治启发”，让我们提供国家公民身份的另一种框架，作为全球化世界中谁是正义主体的问题的答案。

{"title":"Who Are the Subjects of Justice in a Globalized World? From the ‘Unidimensional Identity’ to the ‘Diversity of Identities’","authors":"A. R. Mendez","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-012","url":null,"abstract":": This article states that the idea of national citizenship, bound to rights and duties circumscribed to a State, is no longer fit to reflect upon the political challenges of a globalizing world. Instead, I argue in favor of the ‘ diversity of identities ’ as a ‘ political heuristic ’ that offers an alternative frame to the question about who is the subject of justice. Our current understanding of the political and social action lacks of something: the concept of a citizen that we inherit from Modernity — the citizen as the subject of rights and duties — doesn ’ t let us explain its current dynamics in a globalizing world. Problems such as migration, refugees and contemporary social movements, among others, have led us to problematize two ideas associated with that concept: a) citizenship is defined based on exclusively national rights and duties, that is, those which are circumscribed to a politically and geographically well limited territory; and b) a State ’ s citizens are the only subjects for whom justice is understood as the equal distribution of those rights and duties. But the paradigms of national citizenship and just distribution are being undermined by globalization ’ s dynamics, since we are shown that their effects are transna-tional and that the expressions against these effects can also have a global character. This context rushes us to find new forms of understanding for those transformations, as well as the political action of people. To meet this challenge, this work argues in favor of the idea of the ‘ diversity of identities ’ as a way to understand people close to their concrete experiences of injustice, and as a ‘ political heuristic ’ that lets us offer an alternative frame to national citizenship as an answer to the question about who are the subjects of justice in a globalizing world.","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117269580","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Defense of ‘Soft’ Universalism or ‘Clash of Civilizations’ 为“软”普遍主义或“文明冲突”辩护

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-007

Mark Tiedemann

Even the politically more tolerant parts of the world are in no way immune to cultural and national delimitation. The world seems to identify with Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. International organizations like the United Nations try to push back. One attempt is the UNESCO program ‘Philosophy, a School of Freedom’, the declared aim of which is to provide a prophylaxis against radicalization and dogmatism. This article points out three specific accomplishments of philosophical education and their significance for the impending ‘clash of civilizations’: (i) philosophical education as differentiation and critique; (ii) philosophical education as a defense for universalism; and (iii) philosophical education as transcendental tolerance education. The Struggle of Cultures and the role played by philosophical education Both the awareness and the configuration of the political international situation have undergone a dramatic paradigm shift. As to how greatly the asserted or actual ‘struggle of the cultures’ dominates minds in general and politics in particular can be shown by citing an optimistic ‘spirit of the times’ of a previous era. 26 years ago, Fukuyama’s assertion of the ‘End of History’ elicited enthusiastic acknowledgement from broad circles of people: scientists, the public at large and politicians (Fukuyama 1992). There were, after all, sufficient grounds for optimism: the ‘bloodless’ revolution of 1989 led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and put an end to the division of the European continent. The so-called ‘Cold War’ was at an end and the successor nation states of the U.S.S.R. were aspiring to democracy. Parliamentarianism in the countries of the newly founded Commonwealth of Independent States proved to be sufficiently resistant. Long despaired-of disarmament agreements were ratified. The Republic of South Africa overcame ‘Apartheid’ and the world celebrated presidents such as Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel. The conflict in Northern Ireland was pacified and Israelis and Palestinians extended each other the hand. Markus Tiedemann, Technische Universität Dresden (TUD) OpenAccess. © 2018 Markus Tiedemann, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007 However, this stage was concluded by September 11 2001, at the latest. This was the greatest symbolic scenario of an open attack on Western life and culture, and demanded new explanation and categorization. A suitable exponent was already available: Huntington’s lecture, article, paper and book, all linked by titles containing Clash of Civilizations. A paradigm shift was again introduced. The ‘Struggle of the Cultures’ became the predominant interpretative sample for national and international conflicts. Dramatic, politically adverse decisions and wars against international law became an expression of as well as a catalyst for such developments. The United Nations, whi

即使是世界上政治上比较宽容的地区也无法不受文化和民族界限的影响。世界似乎认同亨廷顿的《文明的冲突》。联合国等国际组织试图予以反击。一个尝试是联合国教科文组织的“哲学，一所自由学校”计划，其宣称的目标是提供对激进化和教条主义的预防。本文指出了哲学教育的三个具体成就及其对即将到来的“文明冲突”的意义:(1)哲学教育的分化与批判;(二)哲学教育为普遍主义辩护;(三)哲学教育作为先验宽容教育。文化的斗争与哲学教育的作用无论是对政治国际形势的认识还是格局都发生了巨大的范式转变。至于所谓的或实际的“文化斗争”对一般思想，特别是政治的支配程度有多大，可以通过引用前一个时代乐观的“时代精神”来证明。26年前，福山关于“历史终结”的论断得到了广泛人群的热烈认可:科学家、公众和政治家(Fukuyama 1992)。毕竟，我们有充分的理由保持乐观:1989年的“不流血”革命导致了柏林墙的倒塌，结束了欧洲大陆的分裂。所谓的“冷战”结束了，苏联的继承国开始追求民主。新成立的独立国家联合体国家的议会制被证明具有足够的抵抗力。长期绝望的裁军协议被批准。南非共和国克服了“种族隔离”，纳尔逊·曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)和瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔(Vaclav Havel)等总统获得了全世界的赞誉。北爱尔兰的冲突得到了平息，以色列人和巴勒斯坦人相互伸出了手。Markus Tiedemann, Technische Universität德累斯顿(TUD) OpenAccess。©2018 Markus Tiedemann, De Gruyter出版。本作品采用知识共享署名-非商业-非衍生品4.0许可协议。https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007然而，这一阶段最迟在2001年9月11日结束。这是对西方生活和文化的公开攻击的最具象征意义的场景，需要新的解释和分类。一个合适的例证已经出现了:亨廷顿的演讲、文章、论文和书籍，所有的标题都包含《文明的冲突》。范式转变再次被引入。“文化的斗争”成为解释国家和国际冲突的主要样本。戏剧性的、政治上不利的决定和违反国际法的战争成为这种事态发展的表现和催化剂。联合国已成为一个汇集了全球国际理解的各种思想的组织，它对这种令人不安的事态发展几乎无能为力。其中一项倡议是联合国教科文组织的“哲学，自由的学校”项目。哲学教育，这一全球计划所宣称的目标，是预防任何形式的激进化和教条主义。这个想法是为了培养一个成年的“世界公民”，他们不认为多元化是一种威胁，而是通过批判性判断来参与集体意见形成。费代里科·萨拉戈萨市长用以下词句表达了这一观点:哲学和民主敦促我们每个人行使我们的判断能力，为自己选择最好的政治和社会组织形式，找到我们自己的价值观，简而言之，充分成为我们每个人，一个自由的人。在如此多的危险中，我们没有其他希望。(Mayor, 1995，第12页)但是，在日益加剧的“文明冲突”中，哲学教育能达到什么目的呢?在本文中，我将强调哲学教育的三个具体成就及其对即将到来的“文明冲突”的意义:(1)作为分化和批判的哲学教育;(二)哲学教育为普遍主义辩护;(三)哲学教育作为先验宽容教育。当塞缪尔·亨廷顿发表他的文章《文明的冲突?在1993年的《外交事务》杂志上，出版商声称他在此后的头三年引发的争论比自20世纪40年代以来发表的任何其他贡献都要多(参见亨廷顿1996年，第11页)。亨廷顿的主要观点认为，80年代末的马库斯·蒂德曼(Markus Tiedemann)之后的世界存在连贯性、解体和冲突

{"title":"Defense of ‘Soft’ Universalism or ‘Clash of Civilizations’","authors":"Mark Tiedemann","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007","url":null,"abstract":"Even the politically more tolerant parts of the world are in no way immune to cultural and national delimitation. The world seems to identify with Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. International organizations like the United Nations try to push back. One attempt is the UNESCO program ‘Philosophy, a School of Freedom’, the declared aim of which is to provide a prophylaxis against radicalization and dogmatism. This article points out three specific accomplishments of philosophical education and their significance for the impending ‘clash of civilizations’: (i) philosophical education as differentiation and critique; (ii) philosophical education as a defense for universalism; and (iii) philosophical education as transcendental tolerance education. The Struggle of Cultures and the role played by philosophical education Both the awareness and the configuration of the political international situation have undergone a dramatic paradigm shift. As to how greatly the asserted or actual ‘struggle of the cultures’ dominates minds in general and politics in particular can be shown by citing an optimistic ‘spirit of the times’ of a previous era. 26 years ago, Fukuyama’s assertion of the ‘End of History’ elicited enthusiastic acknowledgement from broad circles of people: scientists, the public at large and politicians (Fukuyama 1992). There were, after all, sufficient grounds for optimism: the ‘bloodless’ revolution of 1989 led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and put an end to the division of the European continent. The so-called ‘Cold War’ was at an end and the successor nation states of the U.S.S.R. were aspiring to democracy. Parliamentarianism in the countries of the newly founded Commonwealth of Independent States proved to be sufficiently resistant. Long despaired-of disarmament agreements were ratified. The Republic of South Africa overcame ‘Apartheid’ and the world celebrated presidents such as Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel. The conflict in Northern Ireland was pacified and Israelis and Palestinians extended each other the hand. Markus Tiedemann, Technische Universität Dresden (TUD) OpenAccess. © 2018 Markus Tiedemann, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-007 However, this stage was concluded by September 11 2001, at the latest. This was the greatest symbolic scenario of an open attack on Western life and culture, and demanded new explanation and categorization. A suitable exponent was already available: Huntington’s lecture, article, paper and book, all linked by titles containing Clash of Civilizations. A paradigm shift was again introduced. The ‘Struggle of the Cultures’ became the predominant interpretative sample for national and international conflicts. Dramatic, politically adverse decisions and wars against international law became an expression of as well as a catalyst for such developments. The United Nations, whi","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121447043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Globalization and Crisis of Values: Promise and Total Disappointment 全球化与价值观危机:承诺与彻底失望

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-022

Ricardo Gutiérrez Aguilar

What should be called (at least according to the views supported by modern moral philosophy schools) the ‘modern moral world’ can be depicted nowadays as an environment in which we consider relations to the community to be morally significant, even when the individuals within the reach of these duties are in fact unknown. So we can blame or we can praise, even in the notorious absence of any identifiable subject of ‘moral obligation’. The fundamental difference is in perceived obligations, not in entitlements: duties versus rights. At first glance, moral entitlement is nothing but an abstract right seeking recognition. Not so the obligation, as the ‘right-bearer’ is waiting for the commitment to be honored. The work of Onora O’Neill, Charles Fried and Thomas M. Scanlon rounds out the argumentation of the normative frame that operates in today’s strongly supererogatory moral world. Men may seem detestable as joint stock-companies and nations; knaves, fools, and murderers there may be; men may have mean and meagre faces; but man, in the ideal, is so noble and so sparkling, such a grand and glowing creature, that over any ignominious blemish in him all his fellows should run to throw their costliest robes. That immaculate manliness we feel within ourselves, so far within us, that it remains intact though all the outer character seem gone; bleeds with keenest anguish at the undraped spectacle of a valor-ruined man [...] To meanest mariners, and renegades and castaways, I shall hereafter ascribe high qualities, though dark; weave round them tragic graces; if even the most mournful, perchance the most abased, among them all, shall at times lift himself to the exalted mounts. (Melville 1988, pp. 117– 118) This text has been made possible and inspired by the following research projects: Philosophy of History and Globalisation of Knowledge. Cultural Bridges Between Europe and Latin America: WORLDBRIDGES (F7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES: PIRSES-GA-2013-612644); Prismas filosófico-morales de las crisis: Hacia una nueva pedagogía sociopolítica (FFI2013-42395-P); the NEW TRUST-CM. Programa en Cultura de la Legalidad (GITcP), led by Prof. Dr Jose María Sauca (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid); and last but not least, the Proyecto de Innovación Educativa (Innova-Docencia) at Universidad Complutense entitled Emociones políticas y virtudes epistémicas en el siglo XVIII: Innovación en la enseñanza de Humanidades (PIMCD-60), with Prof. Dr Nuria Sánchez Madrid as Lead Researcher. The methodology, sources and contents have all been enriched by regular collaborations with the members of these research groups and their invaluable help. Ricardo Gutiérrez Aguilar, Instituto de Filosofía del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IFS-CSIC) OpenAccess. © 2018 Ricardo Gutiérrez Aguilar, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-022 Introduction: The Hero

应该被称为(至少根据现代道德哲学学派所支持的观点)“现代道德世界”的东西，如今可以被描述为这样一种环境，在这种环境中，我们认为与社区的关系具有道德意义，即使在这些责任范围内的个人实际上是未知的。因此，我们可以指责，也可以赞扬，即使在臭名昭著的缺乏任何可识别的“道德义务”主体的情况下。最根本的区别在于对义务的感知，而不是权利:责任与权利。乍一看，道德权利只不过是一种寻求承认的抽象权利。义务不是这样，因为“权利持有者”正在等待承诺得到兑现。奥诺拉·奥尼尔、查尔斯·弗里德和托马斯·m·斯坎伦的著作完善了规范框架的论证，规范框架在当今强烈的附加性道德世界中发挥着作用。像股份公司和国家这样的人似乎令人讨厌;也许会有无赖、傻瓜和杀人犯;男人的脸可能又贱又瘦;但是人，在理想中，是如此高贵，如此闪亮，如此伟大，如此发光的生物，以至于他身上任何不光彩的瑕疵，他所有的同伴都应该跑去扔掉他们最贵重的衣服。我们内心感受到的那种纯洁的男子气概，在我们内心深处，尽管所有的外在特征似乎都消失了，但它依然完好无损;看到一个英勇的被摧毁的人没有被包裹的样子，极度痛苦地流血[…][英语泛读材料对于最卑微的水手、背叛者和落难的人，我以后会认为他们有高尚的品质，虽然是阴暗的;为他们编织悲情的美;即使是最悲哀的人，也许是最卑贱的人，有时也能登上崇高的山峰。(梅尔维尔1988，第117 - 118页)本文的灵感来自以下研究项目:历史哲学和知识全球化。欧洲和拉丁美洲之间的文化桥梁:世界桥梁(F7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES: ppirses - ga -2013-612644);Prismas filosófico-morales de las crisis: Hacia una nueva pedagogía sociopolítica (FFI2013-42395-P);新信托基金。法律文化项目(GITcP)，由Jose博士(马德里卡洛斯三世大学)María Sauca教授领导;最后但并非最不重要的是，康普卢坦斯大学的Innovación教育项目(Innova-Docencia)题为Emociones políticas y virtudes epistemomicas en el siglo XVIII: Innovación en la enseñanza de Humanidades (PIMCD-60)， Nuria博士教授Sánchez Madrid担任首席研究员。通过与这些研究小组成员的定期合作以及他们的宝贵帮助，方法、来源和内容都得到了丰富。Ricardo gutisamurez Aguilar, Instituto de Filosofía del Consejo Superior de investigacaciones Científicas (IFS-CSIC) OpenAccess。©2018 Ricardo gutisamurez Aguilar, De Gruyter出版。本作品采用知识共享署名-非商业-非衍生品4.0许可协议。https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-022引言:千面英雄为了讨论的缘故，让我在这里回忆一段宝贵的记忆，那是我在柏林度过的一段漫长而愉快的研究时光。我是在2010年初冬到达那里的，当时记者们特别喜欢außergewönlich这个词(“非凡的”)——“一个非凡的冬天”。一个土生土长的柏林人(更不用说一个德国专栏作家)都不敢轻易使用这些词。我记得在一个寒冷的早晨离开我的公寓，到处飘着雪花，发现我宿舍的门槛被一大片雪毯明显地与世界隔绝了。我目瞪口呆，四处张望寻求帮助。然后我往下看——它们就在那里，我门口那些被雪浸透的薄纸，预示着我迈出了走出洞穴的坚实的第一步。日复一日，那本几乎没被人注意到的小册子帮助我进入了柏林的生活，为处理当天的会议和阅读扫清了最初的道路。正是这些拼凑在一起的书页构成了这一天——他们告诉我，因为我现在离柏林很远——《林荫大道报》(BZ)。但是不要被它描述的重量所迷惑。快速浏览一下它的历史，我们这些还不了解它的人就会发现，即使它很薄，摆在我们面前的也是一份有140年历史的全盛期报纸。BZ被授予“2016年度最佳论文”——考虑到它的50万读者，这是一个当之无愧的奖项。2009年10月12日，快乐的柏林人在132周年纪念版的页面上发现了一个全新的社会倡议:Berliner Helden[来自柏林的英雄]，致力于做好事，每周刊登六次这一页的特写是向所有为柏林社区服务的市民致敬，并将他们命名为Ehrenamter(“荣誉公务员”)。它提供了无私的平民管理、弱势儿童教育事业或社会包容项目的特殊案例。例如，2016年的奖项名单上充斥着与叙利亚难民有关的内容。其他提到的包括回收和可持续发展倡议，在城市社区实施新的绿色区域。还有那些出于同情帮助需要医疗救助的人，更不用说那些为我们四条腿的朋友找到动物收容所的人了。获奖者通常都是前面提到的“柏林快乐的人”——他们是有一些额外动机的普通市民，并暗示着是什么让城市成为一个共享的空间。空间创造了一种“共享生活”，而不仅仅是占用它。这不仅仅是一个存在的问题，这是一个被认为是共同管理的空间，这些都是它的“英雄”。该项目可在http://www.bz-berlin.de/berliner-helden在线查看(2017年12月23日访问)。302号，里卡多·古蒂姆·阿吉拉尔

{"title":"Globalization and Crisis of Values: Promise and Total Disappointment","authors":"Ricardo Gutiérrez Aguilar","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-022","url":null,"abstract":"What should be called (at least according to the views supported by modern moral philosophy schools) the ‘modern moral world’ can be depicted nowadays as an environment in which we consider relations to the community to be morally significant, even when the individuals within the reach of these duties are in fact unknown. So we can blame or we can praise, even in the notorious absence of any identifiable subject of ‘moral obligation’. The fundamental difference is in perceived obligations, not in entitlements: duties versus rights. At first glance, moral entitlement is nothing but an abstract right seeking recognition. Not so the obligation, as the ‘right-bearer’ is waiting for the commitment to be honored. The work of Onora O’Neill, Charles Fried and Thomas M. Scanlon rounds out the argumentation of the normative frame that operates in today’s strongly supererogatory moral world. Men may seem detestable as joint stock-companies and nations; knaves, fools, and murderers there may be; men may have mean and meagre faces; but man, in the ideal, is so noble and so sparkling, such a grand and glowing creature, that over any ignominious blemish in him all his fellows should run to throw their costliest robes. That immaculate manliness we feel within ourselves, so far within us, that it remains intact though all the outer character seem gone; bleeds with keenest anguish at the undraped spectacle of a valor-ruined man [...] To meanest mariners, and renegades and castaways, I shall hereafter ascribe high qualities, though dark; weave round them tragic graces; if even the most mournful, perchance the most abased, among them all, shall at times lift himself to the exalted mounts. (Melville 1988, pp. 117– 118) This text has been made possible and inspired by the following research projects: Philosophy of History and Globalisation of Knowledge. Cultural Bridges Between Europe and Latin America: WORLDBRIDGES (F7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES: PIRSES-GA-2013-612644); Prismas filosófico-morales de las crisis: Hacia una nueva pedagogía sociopolítica (FFI2013-42395-P); the NEW TRUST-CM. Programa en Cultura de la Legalidad (GITcP), led by Prof. Dr Jose María Sauca (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid); and last but not least, the Proyecto de Innovación Educativa (Innova-Docencia) at Universidad Complutense entitled Emociones políticas y virtudes epistémicas en el siglo XVIII: Innovación en la enseñanza de Humanidades (PIMCD-60), with Prof. Dr Nuria Sánchez Madrid as Lead Researcher. The methodology, sources and contents have all been enriched by regular collaborations with the members of these research groups and their invaluable help. Ricardo Gutiérrez Aguilar, Instituto de Filosofía del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IFS-CSIC) OpenAccess. © 2018 Ricardo Gutiérrez Aguilar, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-022 Introduction: The Hero","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"257 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123097891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Conceptualizing Capitalist Globalization 资本主义全球化的概念化

Philosophy of Globalization

Pub Date : 2018-06-11 DOI: 10.1515/9783110492415-005

Franz-J. Heilgendorff

The philosophical theory of globalization is predominantly comprised of a critique of modern globalization, which is based on a theory of equal distribution of goods and guided by universal ethical principles. I argue that philosophical ethics cannot approach the problem in a different way, because of a lacking concept of society. The lack of a theory of society necessitates arguing with universal principles: philosophers focus on poverty and suffering as such, rather than on poverty and suffering generated by the process of globalization. From the perspective of Marx’s critique of political economy, the empirical perception of human society leads to a mystified and overly simplistic analysis of social interaction. This means that only a conceptual theory of society can reveal the hidden relationship between economical categories. It thereby enables a more complex and adequate critique of globalization than the positivistic theory and its solution to the problems provided by philosophical ethics. Based on a theory of capitalist society, the universalist promises of philosophy will not simply be criticized as illusions, but are recognized as realistic opportunities based on cooperative productive capacities to be liberated from their current alienated forms. Thus, globalization ultimately—in its alienated form—generates the basis for the universal principles that are used by philosophy for its critique of globalization.

全球化的哲学理论主要是对现代全球化的批判，现代全球化是建立在商品平等分配理论的基础上，并以普遍的伦理原则为指导。我认为，哲学伦理学不能以另一种方式处理这个问题，因为缺乏对社会的概念。缺乏社会理论就必须与普遍原则争论:哲学家关注的是贫穷和痛苦本身，而不是全球化进程所产生的贫穷和痛苦。从马克思对政治经济学的批判来看，对人类社会的经验认知导致了对社会互动的一种神秘化和过于简单化的分析。这意味着只有社会的概念理论才能揭示经济范畴之间隐藏的关系。因此，它能够对全球化进行比实证主义理论更复杂和更充分的批判，并解决哲学伦理学所提供的问题。基于资本主义社会的理论，哲学的普遍主义承诺不会被简单地批评为幻想，而是被认为是基于合作生产能力的现实机会，可以从目前的异化形式中解放出来。因此，全球化最终——以其异化的形式——为哲学批判全球化所使用的普遍原则提供了基础。

{"title":"Conceptualizing Capitalist Globalization","authors":"Franz-J. Heilgendorff","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-005","url":null,"abstract":"The philosophical theory of globalization is predominantly comprised of a critique of modern globalization, which is based on a theory of equal distribution of goods and guided by universal ethical principles. I argue that philosophical ethics cannot approach the problem in a different way, because of a lacking concept of society. The lack of a theory of society necessitates arguing with universal principles: philosophers focus on poverty and suffering as such, rather than on poverty and suffering generated by the process of globalization. From the perspective of Marx’s critique of political economy, the empirical perception of human society leads to a mystified and overly simplistic analysis of social interaction. This means that only a conceptual theory of society can reveal the hidden relationship between economical categories. It thereby enables a more complex and adequate critique of globalization than the positivistic theory and its solution to the problems provided by philosophical ethics. Based on a theory of capitalist society, the universalist promises of philosophy will not simply be criticized as illusions, but are recognized as realistic opportunities based on cooperative productive capacities to be liberated from their current alienated forms. Thus, globalization ultimately—in its alienated form—generates the basis for the universal principles that are used by philosophy for its critique of globalization.","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121170362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2