世俗的理由?关于主要作品的小问题

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1215/0094033x-9734777
A. Honneth
{"title":"世俗的理由?关于主要作品的小问题","authors":"A. Honneth","doi":"10.1215/0094033x-9734777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article asks what it means to claim that secular reason is “postmetaphysical” and differentiates among understandings of that notion in Jürgen Habermas’s work. The article considers what secular reason would have to achieve to make good on the claim that it still can provide us with such a comprehensive understanding or worldview. From a theoretical standpoint, we should explore how reality has to be understood for us to understand self and world; from a practical standpoint, we need to ask which attitudes we would actually have to adopt toward reality to find in it the kind of orientation that Habermas believes his version of secular reason holds in store. The article concludes by showing that Habermas’s thesis that secular reason can survive only in the form of a tradition that reaches back to either Immanuel Kant or David Hume is problematic because it neglects a third alternative, namely, a revised Aristotelianism.","PeriodicalId":46595,"journal":{"name":"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Secular Reason? A Minor Query about a Major Work\",\"authors\":\"A. Honneth\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/0094033x-9734777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article asks what it means to claim that secular reason is “postmetaphysical” and differentiates among understandings of that notion in Jürgen Habermas’s work. The article considers what secular reason would have to achieve to make good on the claim that it still can provide us with such a comprehensive understanding or worldview. From a theoretical standpoint, we should explore how reality has to be understood for us to understand self and world; from a practical standpoint, we need to ask which attitudes we would actually have to adopt toward reality to find in it the kind of orientation that Habermas believes his version of secular reason holds in store. The article concludes by showing that Habermas’s thesis that secular reason can survive only in the form of a tradition that reaches back to either Immanuel Kant or David Hume is problematic because it neglects a third alternative, namely, a revised Aristotelianism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033x-9734777\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033x-9734777","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章问,声称世俗理性是“后形而上学的”意味着什么,并区分了于尔根·哈贝马斯作品中对这一概念的理解。这篇文章考虑了世俗理性必须实现什么才能实现它仍然可以为我们提供如此全面的理解或世界观的说法。从理论的角度,我们应该探索如何理解现实,才能理解自我和世界;从实践的角度来看,我们需要问,我们实际上必须对现实采取哪种态度,才能在现实中找到哈贝马斯认为他对世俗理性的看法。文章最后指出,哈贝马斯关于世俗理性只能以传统的形式存在的论点是有问题的,这种传统可以追溯到伊曼纽尔·康德或大卫·休谟,因为它忽略了第三种选择,即修正后的亚里士多德主义。
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
Secular Reason? A Minor Query about a Major Work
This article asks what it means to claim that secular reason is “postmetaphysical” and differentiates among understandings of that notion in Jürgen Habermas’s work. The article considers what secular reason would have to achieve to make good on the claim that it still can provide us with such a comprehensive understanding or worldview. From a theoretical standpoint, we should explore how reality has to be understood for us to understand self and world; from a practical standpoint, we need to ask which attitudes we would actually have to adopt toward reality to find in it the kind of orientation that Habermas believes his version of secular reason holds in store. The article concludes by showing that Habermas’s thesis that secular reason can survive only in the form of a tradition that reaches back to either Immanuel Kant or David Hume is problematic because it neglects a third alternative, namely, a revised Aristotelianism.
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
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Widely considered the top journal in its field, New German Critique is an interdisciplinary journal that focuses on twentieth- and twenty-first-century German studies and publishes on a wide array of subjects, including literature, film, and media; literary theory and cultural studies; Holocaust studies; art and architecture; political and social theory; and philosophy. Established in the early 1970s, the journal has played a significant role in introducing U.S. readers to Frankfurt School thinkers and remains an important forum for debate in the humanities.
期刊最新文献
Queer Spectrality and the Hope of Heterolingual Address The Sociability of Narrative: Freedom, Vulnerability, and Mediation in the Intercultural Novel Coming to Terms with the Future Undisciplined Knowledge: Intersectional Black European Studies Where Next for New German Critique?
×
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