The article explores the scope and the limits of virtue ethics from the perspective of critical theory and critical realism. Based on new research in moral sociology and anthropology, it ponders how the self-realization of each can be combined with the self-determination of all. The article adopts an action-theoretical perspective on morality and defends the priority of the right over the good. It suggests that in plural and polarized societies, there no longer exists a consensus on any version of the (...) good life. It therefore limits the scope of virtue ethics to personal life and pleads for a minima moralia at the social and political level. (shrink)

The article explores the scope and the limits of virtue ethics from the perspective of critical theory and critical realism. Based on new research in moral sociology and anthro...

ABSTRACTAs a comment on the debate between Dave Elder-Vass and Leigh Price, I propose a dialogue between Bhaskar and Habermas. If we could introduce critical realism into critical theory, we might...

The debate between Habermas and Rawls that took place in 1990s concerned how philosophy can justify the principles of justice under the conditions of pluralism of different and irreconcilable moral, philosophical, and religious doctrines. The context of the debate was mainly Rawls’ Political Liberalism and Habermas’ Between Facts and Norms as well. This paper argues that a wider geo-cultural perspective is pertinent in order to better comprehend the different justification strategies in Habermas and Rawls, concerning the principle of justice. This (...) goes for their different geo-cultural experiences and presuppositions – in short, Rawls living in a self-confident North America in the post-war period versus Habermas’ German experience of civilization breakdown. However, it might also be relevant for the assessment of these two strategies in our time, faced with new kinds of geo-political differences and conflicts. (shrink)

The challenge of realizing the democratic power of publics through public sphere remains acute but not hopeless. While claiming that Habermas communicative social theory offers a way forward in spite of a productive but constraining turn towards a modified social liberal frame, nonetheless three limitations of the theory are identified. The first bears on the insufficiency of the sociological evolutionist description of society relevant to the public sphere drawn from classical sociological accounts of differentiation and integration. The second identifies learning (...) theoretical limitations of the normative interactionist, proceduralist account of democracy and democratization potentials. And the third observes on the disconnection between the theory of communicative reasoning from, on the one hand, the critique of pathologies of reasoning, and, on the other, from its implications for lifeworld rationalization. These identified limitations are intended to provide new impetus to radically rethink the public sphere as intrinsic to solving contemporary problems of democracy that Habermas’s more recent account of deliberative theory, with the public sphere merely supplementary, cannot fully do. Yet, with Habermas, this should be on the basis of advancing the communication theory of democracy. (shrink)

Abstract“What we call meaning is bound to vanish”: Under this heading, an interview with Max Horkheimer was published in Der Spiegel (Jan 5, 1970). Revisiting this interview, the article focuses on Horkheimer’s thesis that human beings share the “longing that the injustice which characterizes the world must not be the final word”. It examines the extent to which Horkheimer’s notion of the “desire for the totally other” may be inspired by Kant’s claim that religion is grounded in the “need of (...) practical reason”. A further topic of discussion is Horkheimer’s critical assessment concerning current tendencies toward a “total administration of the world” that may ultimately “reduce thinking to the level of industrial processes”. Relating this critique to Kant’s reflections on the “unbelief of reason (Vernunftunglaube)”, which is based on “the maxim of reason’s independence of its own need”, the article raises the question of Horkheimer’s significance today: What relevance does Horkheimer’s method of casting doubt on any “politics that is not based on theology, metaphysics and, of course, morality” have for today’s discourse on such matters? In this context a brief glance is cast at Jürgen Habermas’s post-metaphysical reading of Horkheimer’s “negative theology”. Die Forschung zu diesem Beitrag wurde durch das Russian Academic Excellence Project at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (Aleksandra Nevskogo Street 14, 236016 Kaliningrad, Russische Föderation) unterstützt. (shrink)

Resumen La experiencia religiosa y la experiencia política han subsistido, a pesar de que la Modernidad y de que nuestra época pretendió a menudo reducir lo político a un campo de relaciones técnicas y procedimientos administrativos. En este contexto es necesario formular la pregunta filosófica por el valor y legitimidad de la relación entre ambos campos en su versión contemporánea. En este artículo se indaga, en primer lugar, en la noción de legitimidad a partir de la obra de Schmitt, para (...) comprender los orígenes y la dependencia simbólica de la mencionada relación. Esta indagación mostrará una tensión entre dos experiencias: la expectativa de lo apocalíptico y la “administración” del tiempo, que atraviesa toda la reflexión teológica. En segundo lugar, se verá a partir de Voegelin el riesgo necesario que se corre en toda acción política. Finalmente, se mostrará a partir de Taubes y Metz cómo la tradición monoteísta de la memoria de la Ley y del sufrimiento postula el peso de una autoridad que permite un horizonte posible desde el cual juzgar y limitar los déficits de toda acción político-religiosa, y cómo se puede sostener la tensión entre ambas experiencias.Religious experience andpolitical experience have survived, despite the fact that Modernity and our age have often tried to reduce the political to a field of technical relations and administrative procedures. In this context, it is necessary to formulate the philosophical question about the value and legitimacy of the relationship between both fields in its contemporary version. This article investigates, firstly, the notion of legitimacy based on Schmitt's work, to understand the origins and symbolic dependence of the afore- mentioned relationship. This inquiry will show a tension between two experiences: the expectation of the apocalyptic and the “administration” of time, which runs through all theological reflection. Second, it will be seen from Voegelin the necessary risk that is run in all political action. Finally, it will be shown from Taubes and Metz how the monotheistic tradition of the memory of the Law and of suffering postulates the weight of an authority that allows a possible horigon from which to judge and limit the deficits of allpolitical-religious action, and how the tension between the two experiences can be sustained. (shrink)

In our contribution to this special issue on thought experiments and mathematics, we aim to insert theology into the conversation. There is a very long tradition of substantial inquiries into the relationship between theology and mathematics. Platonism has been provoking a consolidation of that tradition to some extent in recent decades. Accordingly, in this paper we look at James R. Brown’s Platonic account of thought experiments. Ultimately, we offer an analysis of some of the merits and perils inherent in framing (...) the use of thought experiments in mathematics and theology in terms of Platonism. (shrink)

If it is the tendency of technology, and especially of information and communication technology, particularly in the context of the smart city, not to empower the human person but rather to disenfranchise them by curtailing their capability to judge and choose, how can one counter this dynamic? Code, make, talk, and pray are suggested as possible modes of resistance.