David Estlund, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework.

2010 ◽  
Vol 119 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Julius
2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 418-430
Author(s):  
Marko-Luka Zubcic

Which epistemic value is the standard according to which we ought to compare, assess and design institutional arrangements in terms of their epistemic properties? Two main options are agent development (in terms of individual epistemic virtues or capabilities) and attainment of truth. The options are presented through two authoritative contemporary accounts-agent development by Robert Talisse?s understanding in Democracy and Moral Conflict (2009) and attainment of truth by David Estlund?s treatment, most prominently in Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework (2008). Both options are shown to be unsatisfactory because they are subject to problematic risk of suboptimal epistemic state lock-in. The ability of the social epistemic system to revise suboptimal epistemic states is argued to be the best option for a comparative standard in institutional epistemology.


2010 ◽  
Vol 42 (124) ◽  
pp. 118-125
Author(s):  
Iñigo González Ricoy

David M. Estlund, Democratic Authority. A Philosophical Framework, Princeton University Press, Nueva Jersey, 2008, xi + 309 pp.


Idéias ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Gonçalves de Mario

O livro de David Estlund é resultado de uma reunião de artigos escritos ao longo de vinte anos, trata-se de uma abordagem normativa, cujo objetivo é desenvolver uma teoria epistêmica da democracia, denominada epistemic proceduralism – procedimentalismo epistêmico.


Author(s):  
Pierre Rosanvallon

It's a commonplace occurrence that citizens in Western democracies are disaffected with their political leaders and traditional democratic institutions. But this book argues that this crisis of confidence is partly a crisis of understanding. The book makes the case that the sources of democratic legitimacy have shifted and multiplied over the past thirty years and that we need to comprehend and make better use of these new sources of legitimacy in order to strengthen our political self-belief and commitment to democracy. Drawing on examples from France and the United States, the book notes that there has been a major expansion of independent commissions, NGOs, regulatory authorities, and watchdogs in recent decades. At the same time, constitutional courts have become more willing and able to challenge legislatures. These institutional developments, which serve the democratic values of impartiality and reflexivity, have been accompanied by a new attentiveness to what the book calls the value of proximity, as governing structures have sought to find new spaces for minorities, the particular, and the local. To improve our democracies, we need to use these new sources of legitimacy more effectively and we need to incorporate them into our accounts of democratic government. This book is an original contribution to the vigorous international debate about democratic authority and legitimacy.


Author(s):  
Tim Button ◽  
Sean Walsh

The topic of this chapter is classification. We start by formulating a wholly general philosophical framework for understanding classification programs within mathematics, in which calculable invariants play an important role. We then consider the most famous classification program in contemporary model theory, due to Shelah, who has suggested that classification concerns identifying which theories do not have too many models. We critically compare these two different perspectives on classification— calculable mechanisms vs. not too many models. We close the chapter by discussing Zilber's ambitious proposal for the classification of uncountably categorical theories (i.e. theories which have only one model up to isomorphism in a given uncountable cardinality). Whereas categoricity was seen as a potential philosophical salve in chapters 6-8, Zilber's program regards uncountable categoricity as a kind of extreme classification.


Open Theology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 206-220
Author(s):  
Bernardo Manzoni Palmeirim

AbstractThe assimilation of phenomenology by theology (namely of Heidegger by Karl Rahner) exemplifies how a pre-existing philosophical framework can be imported into a theological system by being suffused with belief. Although one would imagine that the incommensurability between philosophy and religion would thus be overcome, the two disciplines risk to remain, given the sequels of the ‘French debate’, worlds apart, separated by a leap of faith. In this paper I attempt to uncover what grammatical similitudes afforded Rahner formal transference in the first place. Uncovering analogous uses of contemplative attention, namely between Heidegger and Simone Weil, I hope to demonstrate the filial relationship between existential phenomenology and Christian mysticism. I propose that attention is a key factor in both systems of thought. Furthermore, I propose that: 1) attention, the existential hub between subject and phenomena, provides a base for investigating methodologies, as opposed to causal relations, in philosophy and religion; 2) that the two attentional disciplines of meditation and contemplation, spiritual practices designed to shape the self, also constitute styles of thinking; and 3) the ‘turn’ in the later Heidegger’s philosophy is a strategic point to inquire into this confluence of styles of thinking, evincing the constantly dynamic and intrinsically tight relation between philosophy and theology.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009059172110085
Author(s):  
Anna Jurkevics

The recent phenomenon of land grabbing—that is, the large-scale acquisition of private land rights by foreign investors—is an effect of increasing global demand for farmland, resources, and development opportunities. In 2008–2010 alone, land grabs covered approximately 56 million hectares of land, dispossessing and displacing inhabitants. This article proposes a philosophical framework for evaluating land grabbing as a practice of territorial alienation, whereby the private purchase of land can, under certain conditions, lead to a de facto alienation of territorial sovereignty. If land grabs alienate territorial sovereignty, it follows that inhabitants can claim a violation of the people’s right to “permanent sovereignty over natural resources.” However, because sovereignty is entangled in the historical and contemporary causes of land dispossession, I cast doubt on this strategy. Territorially sovereign regimes often undermine democratic land governance by obstructing participation in activities such as zoning, land use, property regulation, and environmental stewardship. These activities, which I theorize as practices of “world-building,” are key to democracy because they give occupants a say in the shape of their common home. The perplexities of sovereignty in matters of land governance suggest that establishing democratic participation in rule over land requires fracturing sovereignty.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document