Leo Strauss and the Threat of Moral Relativism

سال انتشار: 1399
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: انگلیسی
مشاهده: 227

فایل این مقاله در 22 صفحه با فرمت PDF قابل دریافت می باشد

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این مقاله:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_JER-1-2_003

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 19 اسفند 1399

چکیده مقاله:

Relativism generally, and moral relativism in particular, continue to be topics of philosophical controversy. The controversy arises over general questions about the semantics, epistemology, and logic of the relativist’s position. With regard to moral relativism, there are also disagreements about whether moral relativism does not undermine the force of moral claims. Some of these disputes are due to the fact that the disputants differ in the ways they define or understand relativism. Since much of the current controversy about moral relativism has roots in earlier discussions that took place in the twentieth century which have been presented in the works of Leo Strauss, a critical analysis of some of Strauss’s views is presented. Relativism was an issue of paramount importance for Strauss, who nevertheless refused to define the object of his concern. Strauss argues that relativism is self-defeating in a manner designated here as the enfeeblement peritrope. Finally, a sketch of how equivocation on the issue of relativism can be avoided by distinguishing the value relativity from parameter parity. It is the latter that is responsible for the enfeeblement that is Strauss’s target.

نویسندگان

محمد لگنهاوزن

Professor of Philosophy,The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute , Iran.

مراجع و منابع این مقاله:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این مقاله را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود مقاله لینک شده اند :
  • Berlin, I. (2002). “Two Concepts of Liberty”, in: Berlin, I., ...
  • Bloom, A. (1987). The Closing of the American Mind. New ...
  • Flynn, T. R. (2006). Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: ...
  • Fuchs, C. (2016). Critical Theory of Communication. London: University of ...
  • Fukuyama, F. (2006). “Identity, Immigration, and Liberal Democracy”. Journal of ...
  • Golob, S. (2019). “Was Heidegger a relativist?”, in: M. Kusch, ...
  • Heidegger, M. (1998). Letter "On Humanism". In: M. Heidegger, Pathmarks. ...
  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other ...
  • Lukács, Georg. (1923). Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein, Berlin: Malik-Verlag. ...
  • Lukács, Georg. (1971). History and Class Consciousness. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. ...
  • Marcus, J. T., & Tarr, Z. (eds.). (1989). Georg Lukács: ...
  • Rockmore, T. (1995). Heidegger and French Philosophy. London and New ...
  • Smith, S. B. (2009). “Leo Strauss: the outlines of a ...
  • Steizinger, J. (2019). “National Socialism and the problem of relativism”, ...
  • Strauss, L. (1965). Spinoza's Critique of Religion. New York: Schocken ...
  • Strauss, L. (1989). The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: Essays ...
  • Street, S. (2016). “Objectivity and Truth: You’d Better Rethink It”, ...
  • Velkley, R. L. (2011). Heidegger, Strauss, and the Premises of ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع