全球化时代伦理政治观念的细化与变形

C. Roldán
{"title":"全球化时代伦理政治观念的细化与变形","authors":"C. Roldán","doi":"10.1515/9783110492415-009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contemporary literature, it is acknowledged as a fact that while we currently find ourselves facing the ‘Era of Globalization’, still very little work has been done to analyze this concept, which rather appears as a deus ex machina; as a product of the contemporary crisis, lacking political history and semantic genealogy, wanting nevertheless to become an explanatory wildcard for all present events, both in a positive and negative sense. The initial thesis of this article is that the current concept of globalization is an empty one that has been stripped of its historical content. This emptying is part of the ‘postmodern’ processes of thinning and deformation afflicting ethical-political concepts (freedom, equality, democracy) by depriving them of their ‘modern’ content without endowing any other. Taking this into account, I defend the consequent thesis that the suppression of these concepts’ semantic history implies in turn the eradication of the ethical commitment that they entailed, whose inheritance by contrast should not be renounced. I conclude that there is the need for a socio-political pedagogy that contributes to transmitting ‘responsibility for the concepts’ that are the true shapers of collective identities. Without this responsibility, our ability to adopt any other type of historical, ethical or political responsibility would be impeded. With this proposal, I want to recover in its true ‘universal’—not ‘global’—sense the Leibnizian motto ‘Theoria cum praxi’ taken up by the Enlightenment, in which a renewed philosophy of history acts as a bridge between history (memory) and politics (action), endowing both with ethical content. This article is an outcome of the projects WORLDBRIDGES (F7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES: PIRSES-GA2013-612644); PRISMAS (FFI2013-42395-P); and NEW TRUST-CM (S2015-HUM-3466 / DER2015-","PeriodicalId":126664,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Globalization","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Thinning and Deformation of Ethical and Political Concepts in the Era of Globalization\",\"authors\":\"C. Roldán\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/9783110492415-009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In contemporary literature, it is acknowledged as a fact that while we currently find ourselves facing the ‘Era of Globalization’, still very little work has been done to analyze this concept, which rather appears as a deus ex machina; as a product of the contemporary crisis, lacking political history and semantic genealogy, wanting nevertheless to become an explanatory wildcard for all present events, both in a positive and negative sense. The initial thesis of this article is that the current concept of globalization is an empty one that has been stripped of its historical content. This emptying is part of the ‘postmodern’ processes of thinning and deformation afflicting ethical-political concepts (freedom, equality, democracy) by depriving them of their ‘modern’ content without endowing any other. Taking this into account, I defend the consequent thesis that the suppression of these concepts’ semantic history implies in turn the eradication of the ethical commitment that they entailed, whose inheritance by contrast should not be renounced. I conclude that there is the need for a socio-political pedagogy that contributes to transmitting ‘responsibility for the concepts’ that are the true shapers of collective identities. Without this responsibility, our ability to adopt any other type of historical, ethical or political responsibility would be impeded. With this proposal, I want to recover in its true ‘universal’—not ‘global’—sense the Leibnizian motto ‘Theoria cum praxi’ taken up by the Enlightenment, in which a renewed philosophy of history acts as a bridge between history (memory) and politics (action), endowing both with ethical content. This article is an outcome of the projects WORLDBRIDGES (F7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES: PIRSES-GA2013-612644); PRISMAS (FFI2013-42395-P); and NEW TRUST-CM (S2015-HUM-3466 / DER2015-\",\"PeriodicalId\":126664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Globalization\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Globalization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Globalization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110492415-009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在当代文学中,公认的事实是,虽然我们目前发现自己面临着“全球化时代”,但分析这一概念的工作仍然很少,这似乎是一个神机妙计;作为当代危机的产物,缺乏政治历史和语义谱系,然而,想要成为所有当前事件的解释性通配符,无论是积极的还是消极的。本文的最初论点是,当前的全球化概念是一个被剥夺了其历史内容的空洞概念。这种空虚是“后现代”过程的一部分,它通过剥夺伦理政治概念(自由、平等、民主)的“现代”内容而不赋予任何其他内容,从而使这些概念(自由、平等、民主)变薄和变形。考虑到这一点,我为随后的论点辩护,即对这些概念的语义历史的压制反过来意味着对它们所包含的伦理承诺的根除,而伦理承诺的继承则不应被放弃。我的结论是,需要一种社会政治教育学,有助于传递“对概念的责任”,这些概念是集体身份的真正塑造者。没有这种责任,我们承担任何其他类型的历史、道德或政治责任的能力将受到阻碍。有了这个建议,我想恢复莱布尼茨的格言“理论与实践”(Theoria cum praxi)的真正“普遍”意义,而不是“全球”意义上的启蒙运动,其中一种更新的历史哲学作为历史(记忆)和政治(行动)之间的桥梁,赋予两者伦理内容。本文是WORLDBRIDGES (F7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES: pses - ga2013 -612644)项目的成果;棱镜(ffi2013 - 42395 p);和NEW TRUST-CM (S2015-HUM-3466 / DER2015-)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Thinning and Deformation of Ethical and Political Concepts in the Era of Globalization
In contemporary literature, it is acknowledged as a fact that while we currently find ourselves facing the ‘Era of Globalization’, still very little work has been done to analyze this concept, which rather appears as a deus ex machina; as a product of the contemporary crisis, lacking political history and semantic genealogy, wanting nevertheless to become an explanatory wildcard for all present events, both in a positive and negative sense. The initial thesis of this article is that the current concept of globalization is an empty one that has been stripped of its historical content. This emptying is part of the ‘postmodern’ processes of thinning and deformation afflicting ethical-political concepts (freedom, equality, democracy) by depriving them of their ‘modern’ content without endowing any other. Taking this into account, I defend the consequent thesis that the suppression of these concepts’ semantic history implies in turn the eradication of the ethical commitment that they entailed, whose inheritance by contrast should not be renounced. I conclude that there is the need for a socio-political pedagogy that contributes to transmitting ‘responsibility for the concepts’ that are the true shapers of collective identities. Without this responsibility, our ability to adopt any other type of historical, ethical or political responsibility would be impeded. With this proposal, I want to recover in its true ‘universal’—not ‘global’—sense the Leibnizian motto ‘Theoria cum praxi’ taken up by the Enlightenment, in which a renewed philosophy of history acts as a bridge between history (memory) and politics (action), endowing both with ethical content. This article is an outcome of the projects WORLDBRIDGES (F7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES: PIRSES-GA2013-612644); PRISMAS (FFI2013-42395-P); and NEW TRUST-CM (S2015-HUM-3466 / DER2015-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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