This paper aims to come to grips with the rich philosophy of Charles Taylor by focusing on his concept of ‘strong evaluation’. I argue that a close examination of this term brings out more clearly the continuing tensions in his writings as a whole. I trace back the origin of strong evaluation in Taylor’s earliest writings, and continue by laying out the different philosophical themes that revolve around it. Next, the focus is on the separate arguments in which strong evaluation (...) is central, uncovering several methodological conflicts in Taylor’s strategies. Arguing against most of his commentators, I suggest that a distinction should be drawn between the philosophical anthropological, moral, and ontological implications of strong evaluation. As a result, the contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it clarifies the issue of strong evaluation by distinguishing the different arguments in which Taylor employs the concept. Second, it makes the case for multiple tensions within Taylor’s methods. Third, as a consequence, this analysis not only enables us to evaluate the potential and limits of his subject-centered philosophy but also separates his objectivist claims from his theories of human subjectivity, opening up the question of the metaphysical status of his ontological view. (shrink)

I take it that (1) the central problem of political philosophy is how to deploy philosophy in the criticism and direction of practice. This paper maps out the basic terrain of the relationship between (A) neo?Kantian Critical Theory (for example, Jürgen Habermas), (B) hermeneutics (for example, Charles Taylor) and (C) constructivism (for example, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari). It contends that this central problem (1) is not met by the arguments of (A) and (B) ? these representing what I call (...) ?the communicative turn in political philosophy?. They assume ?democratic dialogue? is its own justification and that from it spring both truth and right. The key objection is that the communication of opinions is not the same as the demonstration of their validity. I argue that (C) may help to take us beyond the failures of (A) and (B). (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es poner de manifiesto la relevancia del legado filosófico de Karl-Otto Apel a la luz del diálogo con la ética de Charles Taylor. Nos detenemos en los últimos libros publicados de Charles Taylor y ensayamos una interpretación crítica de sus tesis a partir de la pragmática trascendental de Apel. Hundiendo sus raíces en la matriz hermenéutica y crítica, la ética del discurso de Karl-Otto Apel sigue ofreciendo una dialéctica fecunda entre realidad e idealidad que resulta (...) insoslayable para afrontar con garantías el futuro de la humanidad. The aim of this paper is to highlight the relevance of the philosophical legacy of Karl-Otto Apel in light of the dialogue with the philosophy of Charles Taylor. The paper is focused on the last published books of Charles Taylor and a critical interpretation of some of his main ideas from the Apel’s transcendental pragmatics is addressed. Plunging its roots in the hermeneutic and critical matrix, Karl-Otto Apel's ethic of discourse continues to offer a fruitful dialectic between reality and ideality that is unavoidable to face the future of humanity with guarantees. (shrink)