Experts or Mediators? Philosophers in the Public Sphere  

Oleh:

Dusche, Michael

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Ethical Perspectives: Journal of the European Ethics Network vol. 9 no. 1 (Apr. 2002), page 21-30.
Topik: Philosophy; Public Sphere

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: EE45.5 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

This paper is inspired by the 1995 dispute between the philosophers JUrgen Habermas and John Rawls in the Journal of Philosophy about the role of the philosopher in the public sphere. I am criticizing Habermas in his attempt to depict Rawis as a kind of justice expert. I am grounding my defence of Rawls in an argument that parallels Quine’s indeterminacy argument. This crossover of argumentative strategies taken from analytic philosophy into moral and political theory maybe can account for the relevance of this paper to post-linguistic-turn philosophy, firstly, because the syncretistic nature of such an attempt bears a certain affinity to postmodern fashions of thinking. Secondly, I believe that a thinker such as Quine who is firmly rooted in the analytic tradition nevertheless surpasses this tradition in a way that in some respects may be seen as paralleling the developments in post-structuralist and postmodern thought. In Quine and some of his contemporaries and disciples, analytic philosophy turns away from the positivist assumptions of its fathers. It no longer stipulates a single way of representing the positive world in the one and only true theory. Truth, in fact, comes to be looked at as relative to a theory of which there can be many. However, if many theories serve the same purpose equally well, then truth, as theory dependent, becomes a pluralistic concept itself.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali