宽容:多元社会的冲突解决方法还是歧视的工具?

Tomasz Jarymowicz
{"title":"宽容:多元社会的冲突解决方法还是歧视的工具?","authors":"Tomasz Jarymowicz","doi":"10.19195/1895-8001.15.1.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is an extended argument for a positive conception of toleration. First, it examines and ultimately rejects reductive interpretations of toleration proposed by David Heyd and Wendy Brown that stem from deflationary and deconstructive readings respectively. It is argued that deconstructive reading is not satisfactory because it perpetuates and amplifies rather than solves paradoxes of toleration, whereas Heyd’s reading does not recognise the importance of toleration for political processes. The author advocates a normative conception of toleration proposed by Rainer Forst, instead. Such a regime of toleration is based on the right to justification in which everyone affected should participate in delineating its limits as free and equal citizens. This conception not only solves the paradoxes of toleration but also does justice to its political importance.","PeriodicalId":262683,"journal":{"name":"Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Toleration: Conflict Resolution Method in Pluralist Societies or a Tool of Discrimination?\",\"authors\":\"Tomasz Jarymowicz\",\"doi\":\"10.19195/1895-8001.15.1.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is an extended argument for a positive conception of toleration. First, it examines and ultimately rejects reductive interpretations of toleration proposed by David Heyd and Wendy Brown that stem from deflationary and deconstructive readings respectively. It is argued that deconstructive reading is not satisfactory because it perpetuates and amplifies rather than solves paradoxes of toleration, whereas Heyd’s reading does not recognise the importance of toleration for political processes. The author advocates a normative conception of toleration proposed by Rainer Forst, instead. Such a regime of toleration is based on the right to justification in which everyone affected should participate in delineating its limits as free and equal citizens. This conception not only solves the paradoxes of toleration but also does justice to its political importance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":262683,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19195/1895-8001.15.1.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19195/1895-8001.15.1.3","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

这篇文章是对积极宽容概念的延伸论证。首先,它审查并最终拒绝了大卫·海德和温迪·布朗对宽容的简化解释,这两种解释分别源于通货紧缩和解构主义的解读。有人认为,解构主义的阅读是不令人满意的,因为它延续和放大了而不是解决了宽容的悖论,而海德的阅读没有认识到宽容对政治进程的重要性。相反,作者主张采用雷纳·福斯特(Rainer Forst)提出的规范宽容概念。这种宽容制度的基础是辩护权,每个受影响的人都应作为自由和平等的公民参与划定其限度。这一概念不仅解决了宽容的矛盾,而且公正地反映了宽容的政治重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Toleration: Conflict Resolution Method in Pluralist Societies or a Tool of Discrimination?
The article is an extended argument for a positive conception of toleration. First, it examines and ultimately rejects reductive interpretations of toleration proposed by David Heyd and Wendy Brown that stem from deflationary and deconstructive readings respectively. It is argued that deconstructive reading is not satisfactory because it perpetuates and amplifies rather than solves paradoxes of toleration, whereas Heyd’s reading does not recognise the importance of toleration for political processes. The author advocates a normative conception of toleration proposed by Rainer Forst, instead. Such a regime of toleration is based on the right to justification in which everyone affected should participate in delineating its limits as free and equal citizens. This conception not only solves the paradoxes of toleration but also does justice to its political importance.
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