自由、透明与公共领域:哲学分析

IF 1.7 3区文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION

Javnost-The Public Pub Date : 1998-01-01 DOI:10.1080/13183222.1998.11008687

Tim Heysse

{"title":"自由、透明与公共领域:哲学分析","authors":"Tim Heysse","doi":"10.1080/13183222.1998.11008687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractAccording to Thomas Nagel the desire for autonomy leads to a dilemma: to be certain that no unknown influence determines our decisions, we are driven to seek as much information as possible about what makes the reasons we have (e.g., to decide in favour of one alternative) the reasons for us. Eventually, we end up with a perspective that is so objective that there are no longer such things as decisions or choices, but only alternatives in the course of the world.A way out is suggested by the work on interpretation of Donald Davidson and by remarks of Habermas: autonomy does not require a totally objective view, because in the interpretation of actions, we decide on their autonomy. However, on Habermas’ own view, autonomy is also not something that we can have, because he links autonomy to a final interpretation. The common root of Nagel’s and Habermas’ failure to make sense of autonomy are the famous views of C. S. Peirce about rational inquiry and knowledge. If autonomy presupposes transparency i...","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freedom, Transparency and the Public Sphere: A Philosophical Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Tim Heysse\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13183222.1998.11008687\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractAccording to Thomas Nagel the desire for autonomy leads to a dilemma: to be certain that no unknown influence determines our decisions, we are driven to seek as much information as possible about what makes the reasons we have (e.g., to decide in favour of one alternative) the reasons for us. Eventually, we end up with a perspective that is so objective that there are no longer such things as decisions or choices, but only alternatives in the course of the world.A way out is suggested by the work on interpretation of Donald Davidson and by remarks of Habermas: autonomy does not require a totally objective view, because in the interpretation of actions, we decide on their autonomy. However, on Habermas’ own view, autonomy is also not something that we can have, because he links autonomy to a final interpretation. The common root of Nagel’s and Habermas’ failure to make sense of autonomy are the famous views of C. S. Peirce about rational inquiry and knowledge. If autonomy presupposes transparency i...\",\"PeriodicalId\":46298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1998.11008687\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Javnost-The Public","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.1998.11008687","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

【摘要】根据托马斯·内格尔的观点，对自主的渴望导致了一个困境:为了确保没有未知的影响决定我们的决定，我们被驱使去寻找尽可能多的信息，以了解是什么使我们拥有的理由(例如，决定支持一个选择)成为我们的理由。最终，我们会有一个非常客观的观点，在这个世界的进程中，不再有决定或选择之类的东西，而只有选择。唐纳德·戴维森的解释工作和哈贝马斯的评论提出了一条出路:自主性不需要完全客观的观点，因为在对行为的解释中，我们决定了它们的自主性。然而，在哈贝马斯自己看来，自治也不是我们可以拥有的东西，因为他将自治与最终解释联系起来。内格尔和哈贝马斯未能理解自治的共同根源是皮尔斯关于理性探究和知识的著名观点。如果自治以透明度为前提……

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Freedom, Transparency and the Public Sphere: A Philosophical Analysis

AbstractAccording to Thomas Nagel the desire for autonomy leads to a dilemma: to be certain that no unknown influence determines our decisions, we are driven to seek as much information as possible about what makes the reasons we have (e.g., to decide in favour of one alternative) the reasons for us. Eventually, we end up with a perspective that is so objective that there are no longer such things as decisions or choices, but only alternatives in the course of the world.A way out is suggested by the work on interpretation of Donald Davidson and by remarks of Habermas: autonomy does not require a totally objective view, because in the interpretation of actions, we decide on their autonomy. However, on Habermas’ own view, autonomy is also not something that we can have, because he links autonomy to a final interpretation. The common root of Nagel’s and Habermas’ failure to make sense of autonomy are the famous views of C. S. Peirce about rational inquiry and knowledge. If autonomy presupposes transparency i...

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

Javnost-The Public COMMUNICATION-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Javnost - The Public, an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed social and cultural science journal published by the European Institute for Communication and Culture in association with the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, addresses problems of the public sphere on international and interdisciplinary levels. It encourages the development of theory and research, and helps understand differences between cultures. Contributors confront problems of the public, public communication, public opinion, public discourse, publicness, publicity, and public life from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives.