Lost in Translation: Religion in The Public Sphere.
This paper proposes a Wittgenstein-inspired critique of the prism of translation that frames the recent literature about the debate between Rawls and Habermas on the role of religious reasons in the public sphere (Habermas 2008; Weithman 2006; Wolterstorff 1997). This debate originates with the intr...
| Publicado en: | Philosophia Vol. 46; no. 4; pp. 857 - 877 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Dec2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=133055480&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 133055480 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00483893 1VPF jtl: Philosophia issn: 00483893 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2018 vid: 46 iid: 4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 133055480 10.1007/s11406-018-9964-y ppf: 857 ppct: 20 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 516KB tig: atl: Lost in Translation: Religion in The Public Sphere. aug: au: Gosselin-Tapp, Jérôme affil: Department of Philosophy, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada su: Religious diversity Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889-1951 Habermas, Jürgen, 1929-2026 Rawls, John, 1921-2002 Public sphere sug: subj: Religious diversity Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889-1951 Habermas, Jürgen, 1929-2026 Rawls, John, 1921-2002 Public sphere keyword: Habermas Rawls Wittgenstein ab: This paper proposes a Wittgenstein-inspired critique of the prism of translation that frames the recent literature about the debate between Rawls and Habermas on the role of religious reasons in the public sphere (Habermas 2008; Weithman 2006; Wolterstorff 1997). This debate originates with the introduction of Rawls’s proviso in his conception of the public use of reason (Rawls The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765-807, 1997), which consists in the “translation” of religious reasons into secular ones, which he thinks is necessary in order for religious reasons to be legitimate in the public sphere (Courtois Dialogue, 49, 91-112, 2010; Loobuyck and Rummens Ars disputandi: The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 5, 237-249, 2011; Sikka The Review of Politics, 78, 91-116, 2016). Even though Wittgenstein is not himself concerned with religious pluralism as a political issue, there are numerous scholars who have discussed the political implications of his remarks (Gunnell Contemporary Political Theory, 12 80-101, 2013; Livingston Philosophy and Social Criticism, 33(6), 691-715, 2007; Moore Philosophy and Social Criticism, 36(9), 1113-1136 2010; Pohlhaus and Wright Political Theory, 30(6), 800-27, 2002). The thesis of this paper is that the interpretation proposed by Cora Diamond (2000) in regards to ethical and religious questions turns out to be a suitable way out of the “translation requirement”. According to this solution, if there is to be an understanding between secular and religious citizens on the basis of religious reasons, it should not rely on a “translation” but rather on mutual self-representation. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Philosophia is a copyright of Springer, 2018. All Rights Reserved. item: Philosophia holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2018 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|