战争的本体论:为什么是战争而不是和平谈判

Yevhen Bystrytsky
{"title":"战争的本体论:为什么是战争而不是和平谈判","authors":"Yevhen Bystrytsky","doi":"10.15407/fd2023.02.074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is aimed at a philosophical study of the foundations/causes of war. Its background is a definition of the Russian-Ukrainian full-scale warfare as an irreconcilable existential conflict of the \"Russian world\" between the \"Russian world\" and the national world of Ukraine. Methodological specific of the article is reliance on the everydayness of a boundary situation of war to define the cultural world, as well as cultural identity as concepts that get existential meaning. Philosophy potential is used to clarify the key question for today's war discourse about why the parties to the conflict are determined to take military actions, but not to resolve the conflict through peace negotiations. The answer is sought by comparing two ontologies of the world that there are in Habermas' communicative theory of action and Heidegger's fundamental ontology. Each of them provides an alternative concept of understanding and, accordingly, different foundations for its truth theory. This also provides a perspective, firstly, to distinguish two alternative positions of participants in the discourse of war – \"internal\" one as \"being in a culture at war\" and another of an \"external\" observer. Secondly, this distinction helps to explain why war as a conflict of cultural worlds could be considered from different philosophical points of view, namely from the position of the philosophy of communicative action, as well as in the context of existential analysis of being. Examination of the explanatory potential of both approaches is carried out on the basis of a comparison of different concepts of the world, fundamental to each of philosophers. It is done by clarifications of basics of two ontologies of understanding and, accordingly, of their theories of truth. The article indicates that the theory of truth in communicative philosophy is based on the regulative idea of the unity of the objective world. Instead, with reference to examples from Charles Taylor and Jean-Luc Nancy, the author claims that the fundamental ontology can be reinterpreted in terms of the plurality of being-in-common of people in sovereign cultural worlds. Accordingly, the interaction of representatives of different cultural identities under certain political conditions, i.e., official propaganda can turn into a radical disagreement of different existential understandings of the meaning of being, into a war of cultural worlds that cannot be overcome by just negotiations at the level of competent communication. The article ends with an open question about searching for ways to unify the mentioned ontological approaches.","PeriodicalId":315902,"journal":{"name":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To the ontology of war: why warfare but not peaceful negotiations\",\"authors\":\"Yevhen Bystrytsky\",\"doi\":\"10.15407/fd2023.02.074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is aimed at a philosophical study of the foundations/causes of war. Its background is a definition of the Russian-Ukrainian full-scale warfare as an irreconcilable existential conflict of the \\\"Russian world\\\" between the \\\"Russian world\\\" and the national world of Ukraine. Methodological specific of the article is reliance on the everydayness of a boundary situation of war to define the cultural world, as well as cultural identity as concepts that get existential meaning. Philosophy potential is used to clarify the key question for today's war discourse about why the parties to the conflict are determined to take military actions, but not to resolve the conflict through peace negotiations. The answer is sought by comparing two ontologies of the world that there are in Habermas' communicative theory of action and Heidegger's fundamental ontology. Each of them provides an alternative concept of understanding and, accordingly, different foundations for its truth theory. This also provides a perspective, firstly, to distinguish two alternative positions of participants in the discourse of war – \\\"internal\\\" one as \\\"being in a culture at war\\\" and another of an \\\"external\\\" observer. Secondly, this distinction helps to explain why war as a conflict of cultural worlds could be considered from different philosophical points of view, namely from the position of the philosophy of communicative action, as well as in the context of existential analysis of being. Examination of the explanatory potential of both approaches is carried out on the basis of a comparison of different concepts of the world, fundamental to each of philosophers. It is done by clarifications of basics of two ontologies of understanding and, accordingly, of their theories of truth. The article indicates that the theory of truth in communicative philosophy is based on the regulative idea of the unity of the objective world. Instead, with reference to examples from Charles Taylor and Jean-Luc Nancy, the author claims that the fundamental ontology can be reinterpreted in terms of the plurality of being-in-common of people in sovereign cultural worlds. Accordingly, the interaction of representatives of different cultural identities under certain political conditions, i.e., official propaganda can turn into a radical disagreement of different existential understandings of the meaning of being, into a war of cultural worlds that cannot be overcome by just negotiations at the level of competent communication. The article ends with an open question about searching for ways to unify the mentioned ontological approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2023.02.074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2023.02.074","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

这篇文章的目的是对战争的基础/原因进行哲学研究。它的背景是将俄乌全面战争定义为“俄罗斯世界”与乌克兰民族世界之间不可调和的存在冲突。本文的方法论特殊性在于依靠战争边界情境的日常性来界定文化世界,以及文化认同这一具有存在意义的概念。哲学潜力被用来澄清当今战争话语的关键问题,即为什么冲突各方决心采取军事行动,而不是通过和平谈判解决冲突。通过比较哈贝马斯的交往行动论和海德格尔的基本本体论中存在的两种世界本体论来寻求答案。它们中的每一种都提供了一种不同的理解概念,并相应地为其真理理论提供了不同的基础。这也提供了一个视角,首先,区分参与者在战争话语中的两种不同立场——“内部的”一方是“处于战争文化中”,另一方是“外部的”观察者。其次,这种区别有助于解释为什么战争作为文化世界的冲突可以从不同的哲学观点来考虑,即从交往行为哲学的立场出发,以及在存在主义分析的背景下。对这两种方法的解释潜力的检验是在对不同的世界概念进行比较的基础上进行的,这对每个哲学家来说都是基本的。这是通过澄清两种理解本体论的基础,并相应地澄清它们的真理理论来实现的。本文指出,交往哲学的真理论是建立在客观世界统一的规定性观念之上的。相反,作者以泰勒(Charles Taylor)和南希(Jean-Luc Nancy)的例子为例,主张可以根据主权文化世界中人的共同存在的多元性来重新解释基本本体论。因此,在一定的政治条件下,不同文化身份的代表之间的互动,即官方宣传,可以变成对存在意义的不同存在主义理解的根本分歧,变成一场文化世界的战争,这种战争不能通过在有能力的沟通层面上的公正谈判来克服。文章最后提出了一个关于寻找统一上述本体论方法的方法的开放性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To the ontology of war: why warfare but not peaceful negotiations
The article is aimed at a philosophical study of the foundations/causes of war. Its background is a definition of the Russian-Ukrainian full-scale warfare as an irreconcilable existential conflict of the "Russian world" between the "Russian world" and the national world of Ukraine. Methodological specific of the article is reliance on the everydayness of a boundary situation of war to define the cultural world, as well as cultural identity as concepts that get existential meaning. Philosophy potential is used to clarify the key question for today's war discourse about why the parties to the conflict are determined to take military actions, but not to resolve the conflict through peace negotiations. The answer is sought by comparing two ontologies of the world that there are in Habermas' communicative theory of action and Heidegger's fundamental ontology. Each of them provides an alternative concept of understanding and, accordingly, different foundations for its truth theory. This also provides a perspective, firstly, to distinguish two alternative positions of participants in the discourse of war – "internal" one as "being in a culture at war" and another of an "external" observer. Secondly, this distinction helps to explain why war as a conflict of cultural worlds could be considered from different philosophical points of view, namely from the position of the philosophy of communicative action, as well as in the context of existential analysis of being. Examination of the explanatory potential of both approaches is carried out on the basis of a comparison of different concepts of the world, fundamental to each of philosophers. It is done by clarifications of basics of two ontologies of understanding and, accordingly, of their theories of truth. The article indicates that the theory of truth in communicative philosophy is based on the regulative idea of the unity of the objective world. Instead, with reference to examples from Charles Taylor and Jean-Luc Nancy, the author claims that the fundamental ontology can be reinterpreted in terms of the plurality of being-in-common of people in sovereign cultural worlds. Accordingly, the interaction of representatives of different cultural identities under certain political conditions, i.e., official propaganda can turn into a radical disagreement of different existential understandings of the meaning of being, into a war of cultural worlds that cannot be overcome by just negotiations at the level of competent communication. The article ends with an open question about searching for ways to unify the mentioned ontological approaches.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信