首页> 外文期刊>Human Studies >Ethics of Ambiguity and Irony: Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty
【24h】

Ethics of Ambiguity and Irony: Jacques Derrida and Richard Rorty

机译:歧义和反讽的伦理:雅克·德里达和理查德·罗蒂

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This paper examines the relation or, more precisely, tension between postmodern deconstruction and ethics by elaborating upon the ethico-political dimensions of deconstructionism. It embarks on a critical assessment of postmodern discourse on ethics in view of its political implications by analyzing Jacques Derrida's and Richard Rorty's arguments with an assumption that their positions represent a certain “logic” in the postmodern discourse on ethics. Postmodern ethics is based on incredulity with regard to traditional metanarratives, and it defines ethics in terms of sensitivity or responsibility to “otherness” and difference. Its proponents believe that the negation of modern “metanarratives” opens a way to the Other which has been marginalized and suppressed both in thought and in social practice. Derrida and Rorty represent this position with their emphasis on the ethical nature of deconstruction and the need to elaborate new languages for ethics. Despite postmodern appeal to ethics of this sort, however, postmodern thinking shows its limits in dealing with most ethical-political matters in the contemporary world. The postmodern approach to ethics, being restricted within the perspective of the individual, does not provide any determinate framework for deciding how to adjudicate conflicting ethical claims or how to link the unconditional affirmation of emancipatory ideals, enlightened social criticism, and democratic accountability in determinate political terms. In the main, this paper contends that philosophical deconstruction and “responsibility to otherness” undermine each other in the public sphere.
机译:本文通过阐述解构主义的伦理政治维度来考察后现代解构主义与伦理之间的关系,或更确切地说,是关系。考虑到后现代伦理学的政治含义,它通过分析雅克·德里达(Jacques Derrida)和理查德·罗蒂(Richard Rorty)的论点,并假设其立场代表着后现代伦理学的某种“逻辑”,开始对后现代伦理学进行批判性评估。后现代伦理学基于对传统元叙事的怀疑,它根据对“其他”和差异的敏感性或责任来定义伦理学。它的支持者认为,对现代“叙事性”的否定为“他人”开辟了一条道路,在思想和社会实践中它们都被边缘化和压制。德里达和罗蒂代表了这一立场,着重强调了解构主义的道德本质,以及需要为道德规范阐述新的语言。尽管后现代对这种伦理产生了吸引力,但是,后现代思想在处理当代世界上大多数伦理政治事务中仍显示出局限性。后现代的伦理学方法被限制在个人的视野内,没有提供任何确定性的框架来决定如何裁定冲突的伦理主张或如何将解放性理想的无条件主张,开明的社会批评以及确定政治上的民主责任联系在一起条款。总的来说,本文认为,哲学解构和“对他人的责任”在公共领域相互损害。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Human Studies》 |2001年第2期|5-28|共24页
  • 作者

    Honglim Ryu;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Political Science Seoul National University;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号