Search results

Wir verzeichnen heute tief greifende Verschiebungen im Verhältnis von Religion und Politik, die nicht ohne Antwort bleiben können. Der Beitrag fragt, ob wir die Beziehung zwischen Religion und Politik in der westlichen Welt neu überdenken müssen. Müssen Konzepte wie die religiöse Neutralität der Institutionen und die Trennung von Staat und Kirche neu bewertet werden? Ist die Vorstellung von Säkularisierung als Bestimmung moderner Gesellschaften noch immer richtig? Das entscheidende Signal, dass sich etwas Grundlegendes verändert hat, kommt aus der politischen Philosophie selbst. Es sind nicht nur antiliberale, neokonservative oder kommunitaristische Autoren, die drängen, die religiöse Neutralität des Staates oder seine Trennung von der Kirche zu überdenken. Vielmehr fragen sich auch Autoren wie Jürgen Habermas und John Rawls, ob die Interpretation dieser Konzepte durch die liberale politische Theorie nicht allzu restriktiv war. Der Beitrag geht auf diese Argumentationen ein und diskutiert das Prinzip der Trennung von Kirche und Staat unter Rückgriff auf die politische Theorie und Philosophie. Abschließend betrachtet der Beitrag diese Diskussion in Bezug auf das katholische Italien. (ICB2)

This essay is about the difficulties connected with grounding human rights philosophically in a multicultural context. These difficulties are argued to derive from the tension between our aspiration to universal validity and our shared belief in the constitutive role of life-forms, traditions, cultures, and vocabularies vis-à-vis our conceptions of justice. Rawls's and Habermas's approaches to the justification of human rights are then briefly reconstructed and assessed. A symmetrical distribution of strong and weak points is argued to obtain. In the light of this reconstruction, the author explores the potential of his judgment view of justice for providing a justification of the universality of human rights not vulnerable to the difficulties of the other examined approaches.

Considers the disciplinary range, boundaries, & central concerns of social philosophy. Political philosophy, moral philosophy, & legal philosophy comprise the traditional territories of our conceptual map that have correlatives in the various social sciences; each discipline & subdiscipline is (to varying degrees) concerned with society, social action, & social actors. The notion of a social philosophy, however, is not superfluous or redundant, for it is predicated on the centrality of the social distinct from the political & moral, & with a focus on the modern, the normative, & the Hegelian principle of subjective freedom. K. Coddon

The author proposes a key of interpretation of the post — modern age not as a mere cultural attitude but as an effective philosophical horizon of our time. Two considerations are needed in order to define it: the proclaimed impossibility of a one-way description of reality, and the conviction of the existence of a plurality of conceptual schemes which can not be absolutely reduced one to the other. Therefore postmodernism severely limits the possibility of analysing notions such as liberty, justice and good, which are laden with universalism. After indicating the different possible solutions, the author presents his personal thesis of reflective authenticity: from the kantian notion of reflective judgement, the author traces in authenticity (intended not in a simple psychological or existential sense) the quality of "being measure for one-selves" or self-congruence typical of arts' masterpieces. By disengaging this notion from its original aesthetic ambit it is possible, in Ferrara's opinion, to refer to a pluralistic or exemplar universalism, applicable to ethics as to law, to the political judgement as to the theoretical one, completely different from that generic universalism which is on the contrary based on trans-contextual principles, typical of the modern age.