scholarly journals Δημόσια σφαίρα και θρησκευτικό επιχείρημα στο πλαίσιο της μετακοσμικής κοινωνίας

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Σπύρος Καλτσάς
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Jürgen Habermas ◽  
The Public ◽  
Jurgen Habermas ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
William Connolly ◽  
Critical Account ◽  
The Public Sphere

   Το κείμενο επιδιώκει την ανακατασκευή της προβληματικής της θέσης του θρησκευτικού επιχειρήματος στη δημόσια σφαίρα στο πλαίσιο της μετακοσμικής κοινωνίας. Ανατρέχοντας στη σκέψη των John Rawls, Charles Taylor, Jürgen Habermas και William Connolly, θα επιδιώξω την ανασυγκρότηση των πολλαπλών και πολυσύνθετων διαστάσεων της θέσης του θρησκευτικού επιχειρήματος στη μετακοσμική δημόσια σφαίρα με άξονα τη συνθήκη του πλουραλισμού από την οποία χαρακτηρίζονται οι νεωτερικές κοσμικές κοινωνίες. Το κείμενο κλείνει με την κριτική ανασύνθεση της προβληματικής στη σκέψη των Taylor και Connolly αναδεικνύοντας παράλληλα τη σημασία που έχει η διάσταση της διυποκειμενικής εγκυρότητας των διαβουλεύσεων στη δημόσια σφαίρα μέσα από μια κριτική προσέγγιση της θεώρησης του Habermas.   Λέξεις κλειδιά: Δημόσια σφαίρα, θρησκευτικό επιχείρημα, μετακοσμική κοινωνία, πλουραλισμός.  Abstract  This paper addresses the question of the role of religious argument in the post-secular public sphere in the thought of John Rawls, Charles Taylor, Jürgen Habermas and William Connolly. In order to highlight the complex and multiple dimensions of this subject, I will focus on the importance of pluralism as the mediating concept between religious argumentation and the public sphere. In the concluding section of the paper I will provide a constructive criticism of Taylor’s and Connolly’s arguments and I will defend Habermas’s reconstruction of the intersubjective validity of deliberations in the post-secular public sphere through a critical account of his thought. Keywords: Public sphere, religious argument, post-secular society, pluralism. 

What Scope for Ethics in the Public Sphere? Principled Autonomy and the Antinomy of Practical Reason

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-498
Author(s):  
Maureen Junker-Kenny
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Practical Reason ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Human Agency ◽  
Jürgen Habermas ◽  
The Public ◽  
Jurgen Habermas ◽  
The Public Sphere

Concepts of ‘public reason’ vary according to the underlying understandings of theoretical and practical reason; they make a difference to what can be argued for in the public sphere as justified expectations to oneself and fellow-citizens. What is the significance for the scope of ethics when two neo-Kantian theorists of public reason, John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas, propose a reduced reading of the ‘antinomy’ highlighted in Kant’s analysis of practical reason? The desire for meaning, unrelinquishable for humans, is frustrated when moral initiatives are met with hostility. Kant resolves the antinomy between morality and happiness by invoking the concept of a creator God whose concern that our anticipatory moral actions should not fail encourages the hope on which human agency relies. Defining the scope of ethics by the unconditional character of reason ( Vernunft) rules out the minimisation of ethics to what can safely be expected to be delivered.

The Hijab Debate in the Norwegian Press: Secular or Religious Arguments?

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Alexa Døving
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
Jürgen Habermas ◽  
Translation Process ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Religious Motivation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
Jurgen Habermas ◽  
The Public Sphere

Do religious debaters challenge the secular public sphere? This article is an analysis of the largest religion related debate in Norway: the debate about the hijab and the use of religious symbols in the public sphere. The article is empirically founded on the debates in 2009 that began with the question about to which degree the hijab could become part of the Norwegian police uniform for those who would wish to use it. The analysis is mainly centred on the arguments of the hijab wearers: to what degree is their religious motivation translated into a secular language? The empirical examination will show that Muslim debaters arguments can be characterized by a striking absence of references to religious concepts, and a just as striking use of secular ones. The article suggests that the lack of religious argumentation is an expression of an Islamic secularism rather than a result of a translation process. The hijab wearer's arguments are presented in the light of John Rawls’ and Jürgen Habermas’ thoughts about the need for translation—and its price.

scholarly journals Habermas, Taylor, and Connolly on Secularism, Pluralism, and the Post-Secular Public Sphere

Religions ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaltsas
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Jürgen Habermas ◽  
The Public ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
William Connolly ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
Political Solidarity ◽  
Internal Relationship

The main purpose of this paper is to explore and understand the relationships between secularism, pluralism, and the post-secular public sphere in the thought of Jürgen Habermas, Charles Taylor, and William Connolly. The three authors develop a thorough critique of secularism which implies a radical break with the dogmatic idea of removing religion from the public sphere. My main objective is to show that this critique is related to a normative understanding of our post-secular situation and requires a rethinking of the boundaries of the public sphere in relation to the predicament of pluralism. Arguing against the post-metaphysical conception of secularism, Taylor develops a critique of Habermas’s “institutional translation proviso”, and Connolly stresses the agonistic dimension of the post-secular public sphere. I take these criticisms into account, while arguing that Taylor and Connolly are unable to provide a sound basis for the legitimacy of our institutional settings. In contrast to Taylor and Connolly, I propose a reading of Habermas’s theory based on the internal relationship between universal justification and the everyday contexts of pre-political solidarity. I conclude with a focus on the need to take into account the agonistic dimension of the post-secular public sphere.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document