----- Message d'origine -----De : josette a wismanEnvoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2002 17:51Objet : [MEDIEVALE:4309] Kalamazoo 2003Bonjour, Hello...
Une invitation .........an invitation......
Interventions sollicitees............call for papers.........
Interventions en francais............papers in English
The Christine de Pizan Fan Club has 2 sessions at Kalamazoo 2003:
one is open to any topic referring to our favorite French woman, and the second session has "tolerance" as its main topic.
I suggested the topic of tolerance since it is very relevant nowadays, and was or should have been a few centuries ago.
What was tolerance at that time?
Was Christine more tolerant than other people of her time, and what was the extant of her tolerance...since her religion contains a doctrine of salvation which lays down what is good and what bad, sometimes what was good took precedence over what was just.
We would like to get your proposals electronically to me: email@example.com or to Deborah McGrady at firstname.lastname@example.org before September 15.
It's a great topic!
ürgen Habermas, one of the most important
contemporary philosophers and social theoreticians, is
someone who intervenes in public discourse - but as an
analyst not a moralist. Far from merely publishing for
other inhabitants of the celebrated ivory tower of
scholarly research, his philosophizing is characterized by
an attempt at systematic mediation of thinking and
political action. He thereby adheres to the view that
rationality is implemented in verbal understanding. That
is also the background to his lecture on June the 29th,
2002, at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, devoted to the
question "When Must We Be Tolerant? On Rivalry between Views of the
World, Values, and Theories". His speech shows what contradictions we must
endure in order to be tolerant, and also that tolerance can only be practiced
on the basis of a democratic state founded on the rule of law.
Cognitive Rejection without Practical Consequences
We generally understand tolerance as meaning putting up with divergent
convictions. The concept thus contains an element of rejection since we can
in fact only demonstrate tolerance towards convictions that we have
renounced for good subjective reasons. As soon as we are either indifferent
about an alien view or even appreciate the "value" of this other conviction, we
do not need to be tolerant. The rejection inherent in tolerance is thus radical.
Tolerance is located where non-negotiable fundamental convictions meet and
no agreement can be expected. What is expected of a tolerant person is not
some unresolvable contradiction between competing convictions. That must
be accepted. "At issue is the neutralizing bracketing of specific practical
consequences arising out of unresolved interpersonal contradiction" (J.
Habermas). In other words, the demand is that no action should be allowed to
follow from the collision of competing views.
Potential for Conflict: The Good Takes Precedence over the Just
Anyone who is not "metaphysically restricted" has an easier time with the
demand that contradictions between competing views of the world should
simply be left open. That becomes problematic for someone who derives an
ethos, i.e. personal moral convictions, from a religion. After all every religion
lays claim to total structuring of a way of life, orienting itself on an infallible
doctrine of salvation which lays down what is good and what bad. A religion
thus prescribes how a good life must be led. What is good takes precedence
over what is just. For someone who derives his or her personal ethos from
religious truths laying claim to universal validity, the burden of tolerance is
particularly difficult to bear. As soon as his own ideas about right living are
determined by generally binding models of the good or of salvation, there
arises a perspective where other ways of life seem not only different but also
mistaken. The ethos of the other appears as a question of truth or untruth
rather than an assessment of values. That explains the potential for conflict
implicit in disputes between religions.
Peaceful Co-Existence: The Just Takes Precedence over the Good
Following that model, religious tolerance does not signify that the adherents
of some belief should relativize let alone renounce their own claims to truth
and certainty. Instead tolerance calls for limitation of the practical impact of
one’s own claims to truth and certainty. The demand is that the way of life
prescribed by one’s own religion can only be implemented on condition that
the same rights are accorded to all others. What is just takes precedence
over what is good, and that precedence manifests itself positively in
inter-subjective and supra-confessional recognition of the rules of liberal
co-existence - as provided for in democracy and human rights as normative
foundations of the constitutional state. So for the individual believer that
means he can only implement his own ethos within the boundaries set by civic
norms of equality. He recognizes the other as a fellow citizen with equal
rights, no matter what his or her religious convictions might be.
The expanded concept of tolerance does not remain restricted to the sphere
of religion but can be generally extended to tolerance of others who think
differently in any way. Within today’s pluralist societies where the traditions of
various linguistic and cultural communities come together, tolerance is
always necessary "where ways of life challenge judgements in terms of both
existential relevance and claims to truth and rightness" (J. Habermas)