Multicultural cosmopolitanism remarks on the idea of universal history
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
From the time of our first communication, some thirty years ago, Fred Dallmayr and I have never ceased to disagree about key foundational issues in social and political theory. Our disagreements are not haphazard but consistent; they might be characterized roughly as stemming from the differences between his brand of hermeneutics and my brand of critical theory, or between his sources of inspiration in Hegel and Heidegger and my own in Kant and Habermas. But they are also “reasonable disagreements” that allow for considerable “overlapping consensus” on both methodological and substantive issues. Thus we overlapped sufficiently on questions concerning the role of interpretive understanding in social inquiry to co-edit an anthology on that topic very early on.1 And I want to suggest here that we now overlap sufficiently on the idea of multicultural cosmopolitanism to make our ongoing conversation continually fruitful despite the persistent differences in our “comprehensive doctrines.” Those differences do entail, however, that we follow widely diverging paths before arriving in the same region of the political-theoretical world. And they likely also mean that we are relying on different maps of this region and of the roads leading beyond it as well. But I shall confine my remarks here to charting an alternative route to the sort of global and plural democracy that Dallmayr has set out in a series of recent works.2 It is a route that leads from Kant’s idea for a universal history from a cosmopolitan point of view, through Habermas’s conceptions of social evolution and a postnational constellation, to a sketch of multicultural cosmopolitanism that bears strong affinities to Dallmayr’s vision of “our world.” I Though the genre of universal history to which Kant gave exemplary expression was deeply implicated in colonial domination and exploitation, it cannot simply be discarded in favor of genealogical or other broadly deconstructive modes of historical..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anand Bertrand Commissiong (2011). Cosmopolitanism in Modernity: Human Dignity in a Global Age. Lexington Books.
Darren Staloff (1995). The Search for a Meaningful Past. Teaching Co..
Stefan Ramaekers (2010). Multicultural Education: Embeddedness, Voice and Change. Ethics and Education 5 (1):55-66.
Robert Fine (2003). Kant’s Theory of Cosmopolitanism and Hegel’s Critique. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (6):609-630.
Robert Fine (2009). Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights: Radicalism in a Global Age. Metaphilosophy 40 (1):8-23.
Amélie Rorty & James Schmidt (eds.) (2009). Kant's Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim: A Critical Guide. Cambridge University Press.
Pauline Kleingeld (1999). Six Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany. Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (3):505-524.
Robert Fine (2007). Cosmopolitanism. New York.
R. J. Holton (2009). Cosmopolitanisms: New Thinking and New Directions. Palgrave Macmillan.
Pauline Kleingeld (2012). Kant and Cosmopolitanism: The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-08-01
Total downloads24 ( #158,482 of 1,796,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?