The Concept of Honor in Contemporary Political Philosophy: A Critical and an Adaptational Argument

Q4 Social Sciences
Gintas Karalius
{"title":"The Concept of Honor in Contemporary Political Philosophy: A Critical and an Adaptational Argument","authors":"Gintas Karalius","doi":"10.15388/polit.2021.103.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":" In spite of a growing number of contemporary publications in the field of political philosophy that are dedicated to the concept of honor and to it’s analysis, there still is a lack of a systemic presentation of the conceptual field of honor itself. Political theorists and philosophers that treat the subject of honor state out their definitions of honor and compare them with one another, yet a general overview of the competing definitions and their critical comparison is still a rarety. A systemic presentation of all prominent contemporary philosophical studies that treat the concept of honor is useful in two ways. It facilitates the understanding of the main arguments that determine different definitions of honor, as well as it identifies major polemical issues that set the diferent concepts of honor apart. This article suggests two main arguments – a critical and an adaptational – for interpreting and comparing the different concepts of honor in contemporary political philosophy. Structuring the conceptual field of honor with these two arguments offers an analytic tool for further analyses of honor that are based on concrete polemical issues. It also gives a new perspective to explain the reemergence of honor in contemporary political philosophy.","PeriodicalId":35151,"journal":{"name":"Politologija","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politologija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/polit.2021.103.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

 In spite of a growing number of contemporary publications in the field of political philosophy that are dedicated to the concept of honor and to it’s analysis, there still is a lack of a systemic presentation of the conceptual field of honor itself. Political theorists and philosophers that treat the subject of honor state out their definitions of honor and compare them with one another, yet a general overview of the competing definitions and their critical comparison is still a rarety. A systemic presentation of all prominent contemporary philosophical studies that treat the concept of honor is useful in two ways. It facilitates the understanding of the main arguments that determine different definitions of honor, as well as it identifies major polemical issues that set the diferent concepts of honor apart. This article suggests two main arguments – a critical and an adaptational – for interpreting and comparing the different concepts of honor in contemporary political philosophy. Structuring the conceptual field of honor with these two arguments offers an analytic tool for further analyses of honor that are based on concrete polemical issues. It also gives a new perspective to explain the reemergence of honor in contemporary political philosophy.
当代政治哲学中的荣誉观:一种批判性的、适应性的论证
尽管当代政治哲学领域有越来越多的出版物致力于荣誉概念及其分析,但对荣誉概念领域本身仍然缺乏系统的介绍。对待荣誉主题的政治理论家和哲学家提出了他们对荣誉的定义,并将其相互比较,然而,对相互竞争的定义及其批判性比较的总体概述仍然很少。系统地介绍当代所有著名的哲学研究,这些研究从两个方面来处理荣誉的概念是有用的。它有助于理解决定荣誉不同定义的主要论点,并确定了区分不同荣誉概念的主要争论问题。本文提出了两个主要论点——批判性和适应性——来解释和比较当代政治哲学中不同的荣誉概念。用这两个论点构建荣誉的概念领域,为基于具体争论问题的荣誉的进一步分析提供了一个分析工具。这也为解释荣誉在当代政治哲学中的重新出现提供了一个新的视角。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Politologija
Politologija Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信