特拉普的陷阱:古典民族主义与有限理性

N. Miščević
{"title":"特拉普的陷阱:古典民族主义与有限理性","authors":"N. Miščević","doi":"10.1163/24689300-bja10027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nHow rational are classical nationalist attitudes, and their more recent cousins, populist quasi-nationalist attitudes? This article addresses these questions from the perspectives of instrumental and bounded conceptions of rationality. It demonstrates that on both conceptions pernicious nationalistic attitudes may count as perfectly rational, while remaining clearly irrational in a wider prescriptive sense. The article concludes by pointing to alternative conceptions of rationality and to cosmopolitan remedies for global problems inadequately addressed within nationalistic frameworks.","PeriodicalId":202424,"journal":{"name":"Danish Yearbook of Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trapp’s Trap: Classical Nationalism versus Bounded Rationality\",\"authors\":\"N. Miščević\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24689300-bja10027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nHow rational are classical nationalist attitudes, and their more recent cousins, populist quasi-nationalist attitudes? This article addresses these questions from the perspectives of instrumental and bounded conceptions of rationality. It demonstrates that on both conceptions pernicious nationalistic attitudes may count as perfectly rational, while remaining clearly irrational in a wider prescriptive sense. The article concludes by pointing to alternative conceptions of rationality and to cosmopolitan remedies for global problems inadequately addressed within nationalistic frameworks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202424,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Danish Yearbook of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Danish Yearbook of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/24689300-bja10027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Danish Yearbook of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24689300-bja10027","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

古典民族主义态度,以及近代的民粹主义准民族主义态度有多理性?本文从理性的工具和有限概念的角度来解决这些问题。它表明,在这两个概念上,有害的民族主义态度可以算作完全理性的,而在更广泛的规定意义上仍然是明显非理性的。文章最后指出了理性的替代概念,并指出了在民族主义框架内未充分解决的全球问题的世界性补救办法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trapp’s Trap: Classical Nationalism versus Bounded Rationality
How rational are classical nationalist attitudes, and their more recent cousins, populist quasi-nationalist attitudes? This article addresses these questions from the perspectives of instrumental and bounded conceptions of rationality. It demonstrates that on both conceptions pernicious nationalistic attitudes may count as perfectly rational, while remaining clearly irrational in a wider prescriptive sense. The article concludes by pointing to alternative conceptions of rationality and to cosmopolitan remedies for global problems inadequately addressed within nationalistic frameworks.
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