دیویدسن، هابرماس، و ایدۀ اینترسوبژکتیویته

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه مطالعات علم، موسسۀ حکمت و فلسفۀ ایران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

در این مقاله، ابتدا می‌کوشم توصیفِ مختصری از مسئلۀ کانونیِ فلسفۀ مدرن؛ یعنی نسبت سوژه-اُبژه و راه‌حل‌های ممکن برای آن ارائه دهم. سپس می‌کوشم با رهیافتِ مقایسه‌ای به توضیحِ نقاطِ مشترکِ راه‌حلِ دو فیلسوفِ معاصر، یعنی دیویدسن و هابرماس، به این مسئله بپردازم. این راه‌حل که بر ایدۀ اینترسوبژکتیویته تکیه دارد در این حکم خلاصه می‌شود که رابطۀ سوژه و اُبژه در بستری اینترسوبژکتیو قوام می‌یابد. نکتۀ مورد تأکیدِ این مقاله این است که هرچند این دو فیلسوف از چارچوب‌های فلسفیِ متفاوتی تغذیه می‌کنند، ولی عملاً از جهتِ نحوۀ مواجهه اشان با این مسئله همگرایی‌های زیادی دارند. بدین منظور، هدف این است که وجوهِ مشترکِ کارِ ایشان در چند بُعد تحلیل و بررسی می‌شوند: چرخش زبانی؛ ایدۀ مثلث‌بندی در برابر جهان های سه‌گانه؛ «مفاهمه/ارتباط» به منزلۀ بنیادِ زبان؛ «عقلانیت مشترکِ» سوژه‌های زبانی معرفتی: اصل همدلی در برابر ادّعاهای اعتبار؛ و درنهایت ظرفیتِ «گفتگوی بیناشخصی» برای برقراریِ ارتباط بین اندیشه‌ها یا چارچوب‌های فکریِ متفاوت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Davidson, Habermas, and the Idea of Intersubjectivity

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammadreza Esmkhani
Department of Science Studies, the Iranian Institution of Philosophy, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

One of the main issues in explaining the phenomenon of diversity of religions in the world is the issue of religions ranking; i.e. the question of whether religions are essentially comparable or not! And if it is comparable, what is the criterion and criterion of this comparison? It seems that the border between two different positions in explaining the phenomenon of religious plurality, namely relativism and religious pluralism, comes from the accuracy of the issue of religions ranking. In this article, we will speak of two main representatives of these two trends by proposing and examining this problem and among the religious relativists we refer to Ernest Troeltsch and to John Hick from religious pluralism. This article seeks to put these two theories together and remind them of their similarities and reveal their fundamental differences. Briefly, it can be noted that the major similarity between Troeltsch and Hick is to rely on cultural categories in the consistency of religious awareness, while the fundamental difference between them is the observation of objectivity or subjectivity in their grading criteria. In the end, Hick claims that although religions are comparable in principle, but practically the result of this comparing is the equivalence of religion’s Truth-claims, while Troeltsch says it's basically impossible to compare religions, اowever, in his original statements, he clearly states that in practice, Christianity is superior to other religions. Of course, in his later remarks, he reviews this result and claims that religions are only relative in absolute terms and he claims absolute religions are relative only.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • intersubjectivity
  • Linguistic Turn
  • Communication
  • Rationality
  • Interpersonal Dialogue
Crossley, Nick. (1996). Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming, SAGE Publications  Ltd, United Kingdom   

Davidson, Donald. (2001/1). Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Davidson, Donald. (2001/2). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn.

Davidson, Donald.  (2004). Problems of Rationality, with introduction by Marcia Cavell and Interview with Ernest LePore. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Davidson, Donald.  (2005). Truth, Language and History: Philosophical Essays, with Introduction by Marcia Cavell, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Edgar, Andrew. (2005). The Philosophy of Habermas. Chesham: Acumen .  

Evnine, S. (1991). Donald Davidson.Cambridge: Polity Press.

Finlayson, J. G. (2005). Habermas, A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Glüer, Kathrin. (2011). Donald Davidson; A Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Habermas, Jürgen. (1988). On the Logic of the Social Sciences. S. W. Nicholsen and J. A. Stark (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Habermas, Jürgen.  (1998). On the Pragmatics of Communication. M. Cooke (ed.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  

Habermas, Jürgen. (2003). Truth and Justification.B. Fultner (trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Joseph, Marc, A. (2004). Donald Davidson. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Malpas, Jeff (2011). “What Is Common to All: Davidson on Agreement and Understanding”. In Malpas, Jeff (ed.) (2011). Dialogues with Davidson: acting, interpreting, understanding, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The MIT Press. Chapter 14.

Owen, David S. (2002). Between Reason and History : Habermas and the idea of progress. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Rorty, Richard. (1967) [1992], (ed.), The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method.  Chicago :The University of Chicago Press. ؟

Rorty, Richard. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rorty, Richard. (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. New York: Penguin Books.