The claim once made by philosophers of unique knowledge of the
essence of humanity and society has fallen into disrepute. Neither
Platonic forms, divine revelation nor metaphysical truth can serve
as the ground for legitimating social and political norms. On the
political level many seem to agree that democracy doesn't need
foundations. Nor are its citizens expected to discuss the worth of
their comprehensive conceptions of the good life. According to
Rawls, for example, we have to accept that "politics in a
democratic society can never be guided by what we see as the whole
truth (...)." (1993: 243) And yet we still call upon truth when we
participate in defining the basic structure our society and argue
why our opinions, beliefs and preferences need to be taken
seriously. We do not think that our views need to be taken into
account by others because they are our views, but because we think
they are true. If in a democratic society citizens have to deal
with the challenge of affirming their claims as true, we need to
analyse the precise relationship between truth and democracy. Does
truth matter to democracy and if so, what is the place of truth in
democratic politics? How can citizens affirm the truth of their
claims and accept - at the same time - that their truth is just one
amongst many? Our book centers on the role of the public sphere in
these pressing questions. It tries to give a comprehensive answer
to these questions from the perspective of the main approaches of
contemporary democratic theory: deliberative democracy, political
pragmatism and liberalism. A confrontation of these approaches,
will result in a more encompassing philosophical understanding of
our plural democracy, which - in this era of globalization - is
more complex than ever before.
Because a good understanding of the function, meaning and
shortcomings of the public sphere is essential to answering these
questions, a good deal of the book addresses these issues.
Historically, after all, the idea that citizens have to engage each
other in discussion in order to determine the structure and goals
of society, is connected to the rational ideal of a public sphere
where conflicting views can be expressed, formed, and transformed.
But hasn't the collective decision making in which everyone
participates on an equal footing turned out to be a deceptive ideal
or a simple illusion? Not every individual in society has equal
access to the podium. Furthermore, power, being an inevitable
feature of the public sphere, seems to permanently endanger its
democratic value. Moreover, the existence of this sphere depends on
a specific ethos and particular public spaces where citizens are
called upon to present themselves as citizens, as people taking
responsibility for their society. It is not clear whether this
ethos and these spaces exist at all, and if so, if they preserved
their ascribed capacity for constituting 'democratic' truth? By
answering these questions we expect to deepen our understanding of
the relation between truth and democracy.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!