对焦点问题的回应

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS Pub Date : 2024-06-03 DOI:10.1111/jore.12475
Christopher B. Barnett
{"title":"对焦点问题的回应","authors":"Christopher B. Barnett","doi":"10.1111/jore.12475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Barnett responds to three articles that put the thought of Søren Kierkegaard in conversation with modern popular media. He argues that each of these pieces demonstrates that Kierkegaard's criticism of the burgeoning free press remains relevant today, particularly in the areas of journalistic practice, mental health, and political responsibility. At the same time, however, Barnett wonders if the radical nature of the Dane's critique has been fully considered. For Kierkegaard, in other words, it is not just that popular media have flaws in need of correction; it is that the media constitute “the evil principle in the modern world.”</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":45722,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to Focus Issue\",\"authors\":\"Christopher B. Barnett\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jore.12475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Barnett responds to three articles that put the thought of Søren Kierkegaard in conversation with modern popular media. He argues that each of these pieces demonstrates that Kierkegaard's criticism of the burgeoning free press remains relevant today, particularly in the areas of journalistic practice, mental health, and political responsibility. At the same time, however, Barnett wonders if the radical nature of the Dane's critique has been fully considered. For Kierkegaard, in other words, it is not just that popular media have flaws in need of correction; it is that the media constitute “the evil principle in the modern world.”</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jore.12475\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS ETHICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jore.12475","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Barnett 回应了三篇将索伦-克尔凯郭尔的思想与现代流行媒体进行对话的文章。他认为,每篇文章都表明,克尔凯郭尔对新兴自由媒体的批评在今天仍然具有现实意义,尤其是在新闻实践、心理健康和政治责任等领域。但与此同时,巴奈特不禁要问,丹麦人批评的激进性是否得到了充分考虑。换句话说,对克尔凯郭尔而言,需要纠正的不仅仅是大众媒体的缺陷,而是媒体构成了 "现代世界的邪恶原则"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Response to Focus Issue

Barnett responds to three articles that put the thought of Søren Kierkegaard in conversation with modern popular media. He argues that each of these pieces demonstrates that Kierkegaard's criticism of the burgeoning free press remains relevant today, particularly in the areas of journalistic practice, mental health, and political responsibility. At the same time, however, Barnett wonders if the radical nature of the Dane's critique has been fully considered. For Kierkegaard, in other words, it is not just that popular media have flaws in need of correction; it is that the media constitute “the evil principle in the modern world.”

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Founded in 1973, the Journal of Religious Ethics is committed to publishing the very best scholarship in religious ethics, to fostering new work in neglected areas, and to stimulating exchange on significant issues. Emphasizing comparative religious ethics, foundational conceptual and methodological issues in religious ethics, and historical studies of influential figures and texts, each issue contains independent essays, commissioned articles, and a book review essay, as well as a Letters, Notes, and Comments section. Published primarily for scholars working in ethics, religious studies, history of religions, and theology, the journal is also of interest to scholars working in related fields such as philosophy, history, social and political theory, and literary studies.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Religion, Race, and the Limit of Ethics: Historical Considerations A Daoist Critique of Effort in Pierre Hadot's Philosophy Animism, Eco-Immanence, and Divine Transcendence: Toward an Integrated Religious Framework for Environmental Ethics Kierkegaard, Social Media, and Despair
×
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:481959085
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