如何连接?对宽容思想爆发的反思

IF 0.1 4区 文学 0 LITERATURE, GERMAN, DUTCH, SCANDINAVIAN ETUDES GERMANIQUES Pub Date : 2021-05-06 DOI:10.3917/EGER.299.0441
G. Raulet
{"title":"如何连接?对宽容思想爆发的反思","authors":"G. Raulet","doi":"10.3917/EGER.299.0441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Eighteenth-century intellectual debates may sometimes be used to reveal the issues at stake in contemporary ones as does for example the controversy between Mendelssohn and Christian Wilhelm Dohm about the emancipation of the Jews: what matters to Mendelssohn beyond the question of the rights of the Jews as a religious minority, is the recognition of fundamental natural rights on which the recognition of civil rights can be established.Mendelssohn opposes a communitarian misinterpretation of the issue of equal rights, rejecting thus the confusion between liberalism and laissez-faire. US-American debates on freedom of religious thought, in which religious tolerance, relativism and freedom are often used to justify discrimination, show how perfectly right he was as a man ahead of his time.Pluralism does not mean that all assertions are acceptable as a principle; in fact, quite the opposite is true: it presupposes that they are acceptable in principle, i.e. that they meet the requirement of pluralism.This article confronts Habermas’s theoretical models with Jean-Francois Lyotard’s, and analyses the contribution of Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition. Lyotard’s essential idea is to encourage the acceptance of diversity of opinion, provided it does not jeopardise democracy, and to maintain the dialogue, without surrendering to reasons that are not recognised as better ones. A commitment that is not hopelessly dogmatic must allow the dialogue to flow in a discursive way.","PeriodicalId":41323,"journal":{"name":"ETUDES GERMANIQUES","volume":"1 1","pages":"441-460"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comment enchaîner ? Réflexions sur le déchaînement de la pensée tolérante\",\"authors\":\"G. Raulet\",\"doi\":\"10.3917/EGER.299.0441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Eighteenth-century intellectual debates may sometimes be used to reveal the issues at stake in contemporary ones as does for example the controversy between Mendelssohn and Christian Wilhelm Dohm about the emancipation of the Jews: what matters to Mendelssohn beyond the question of the rights of the Jews as a religious minority, is the recognition of fundamental natural rights on which the recognition of civil rights can be established.Mendelssohn opposes a communitarian misinterpretation of the issue of equal rights, rejecting thus the confusion between liberalism and laissez-faire. US-American debates on freedom of religious thought, in which religious tolerance, relativism and freedom are often used to justify discrimination, show how perfectly right he was as a man ahead of his time.Pluralism does not mean that all assertions are acceptable as a principle; in fact, quite the opposite is true: it presupposes that they are acceptable in principle, i.e. that they meet the requirement of pluralism.This article confronts Habermas’s theoretical models with Jean-Francois Lyotard’s, and analyses the contribution of Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition. Lyotard’s essential idea is to encourage the acceptance of diversity of opinion, provided it does not jeopardise democracy, and to maintain the dialogue, without surrendering to reasons that are not recognised as better ones. A commitment that is not hopelessly dogmatic must allow the dialogue to flow in a discursive way.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41323,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ETUDES GERMANIQUES\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"441-460\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ETUDES GERMANIQUES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3917/EGER.299.0441\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, GERMAN, DUTCH, SCANDINAVIAN\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ETUDES GERMANIQUES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/EGER.299.0441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, GERMAN, DUTCH, SCANDINAVIAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

18世纪知识分子的辩论有时会被用来揭示当代问题的关键例如门德尔松和克里斯蒂安·威廉·多姆之间关于犹太人解放的争论对门德尔松来说,除了犹太人作为宗教少数派的权利问题之外,重要的是对基本自然权利的承认,在此基础上对公民权利的承认可以建立起来。门德尔松反对社群主义对平等权利问题的误解,因此拒绝混淆自由主义和自由放任主义。在关于宗教思想自由的美国辩论中,宗教宽容、相对主义和自由经常被用来为歧视辩护,这表明他作为一个走在时代前面的人是多么正确。多元主义并不意味着所有主张都可以作为原则接受;事实上,情况正好相反:它的前提是它们在原则上是可以接受的,即它们符合多元主义的要求。本文将哈贝马斯的理论模型与利奥塔的理论模型进行比较,并分析了霍内斯的认识理论的贡献。利奥塔的基本思想是,在不危及民主的前提下,鼓励对意见多样性的接受,并保持对话,而不屈服于不被认为是更好的理由。一个不是无可救药的教条主义的承诺必须允许对话以一种话语的方式进行。
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
Comment enchaîner ? Réflexions sur le déchaînement de la pensée tolérante
Eighteenth-century intellectual debates may sometimes be used to reveal the issues at stake in contemporary ones as does for example the controversy between Mendelssohn and Christian Wilhelm Dohm about the emancipation of the Jews: what matters to Mendelssohn beyond the question of the rights of the Jews as a religious minority, is the recognition of fundamental natural rights on which the recognition of civil rights can be established.Mendelssohn opposes a communitarian misinterpretation of the issue of equal rights, rejecting thus the confusion between liberalism and laissez-faire. US-American debates on freedom of religious thought, in which religious tolerance, relativism and freedom are often used to justify discrimination, show how perfectly right he was as a man ahead of his time.Pluralism does not mean that all assertions are acceptable as a principle; in fact, quite the opposite is true: it presupposes that they are acceptable in principle, i.e. that they meet the requirement of pluralism.This article confronts Habermas’s theoretical models with Jean-Francois Lyotard’s, and analyses the contribution of Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition. Lyotard’s essential idea is to encourage the acceptance of diversity of opinion, provided it does not jeopardise democracy, and to maintain the dialogue, without surrendering to reasons that are not recognised as better ones. A commitment that is not hopelessly dogmatic must allow the dialogue to flow in a discursive way.
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
ETUDES GERMANIQUES
ETUDES GERMANIQUES LITERATURE, GERMAN, DUTCH, SCANDINAVIAN-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: La revue Études germaniques a pour but d"informer avec un grand souci d"impartialité et d"objectivité scientifique tous ceux qui s"intéressent à la vie du monde germanique (Allemagne, Suisse, pays scandinaves et néerlandais, études yiddish et judéo-allemandes), aussi bien sur des questions qui touchent à la linguistique, à la littérature, à l"histoire, à la philosophie, à l"art, à la religion — en un mot à la civilisation — qu"à celles qui relèvent de l"actualité et qui sont étudiées dans un esprit de savants et non de partisans.
期刊最新文献
Espaces et systèmes des Inscriptiones de Samuel Quiccheberg, point d’ancrage du musée du xxi e siècle ? Le problème de l’éthique et le visage de l’autre. Martin Buber et Emmanuel Levinas en dialogue Canetti als Anti-Nietzsche La volonté de transparence dans la politique muséale des Pays-Bas ou comment apprendre à faire face aux dangers Le plan et le parcours. Guider le visiteur dans la galerie impériale et royale de Vienne à la fin du xviii e siècle
×
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