référence : http://listes.cru.fr/arc/medievale/2002-09/msg00003.html

[MEDIEVALE:4310] Re: Kalamazoo 2003 serge

Cette liste étant une liste FRANCOPHONE, merci de penser aux internautes passionnés par le moyen âge mais qui ne comprenne pas l'anglais (ce qui est mon cas)
Que le texte initial soit en anglais peut se concevoir, je ne veux pas polémiquer là dessus, mais une traduction française dans le même envoi serait la bienvenue...
Merci d'y penser
----- Message d'origine -----
De : josette a wisman
À : Liste de discussion sur l'occident medieval
Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2002 17:51
Objet : [MEDIEVALE:4309] Kalamazoo 2003

Bonjour, 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: jwisman@american.edu or to Deborah McGrady at dmcgra@tulane.edu 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.
                                Pluralist Societies
                                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)