ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.1.1.55 |
Resumo: | Must the participant to public discourse have knowledge of her beliefs, attitudes and reasons as well as belief-formation processes to have justified political belief? In this paper, we test this question with reference to Jeffrey Stout’s (2004) approach to public discourse and public philosophy. After defining selfknowledge and justification along the lines of James Pryor (2004), we map thereon Stout’s view of public discourse and public philosophy as democratic piety, earnest storytelling and Brandomian expressive rationality. We then lay out Brian Leiter’s (2016) naturalistic critique of public philosophy as “discursive hygiene” to see whether Stoutian public philosophy survives the former’s emotivist-tribalist gauntlet. Lastly, we find that Leiter’s critique proves less radical than it may appear and requires the moderating influence of a public philosophy like Stout’s. All in all, Stoutian public discourse and public philosophy powerfully illustrates a strong, necessary connection between self-knowledge and political justification. Post-truth is not post-justification. |
id |
RCAP_f0676770e30e0e2bca48b81872910fe7 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:journals.uminho.pt:article/4657 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHYESTAREMOS NA ÉPOCA DA PÓS-JUSTIFICAÇÃO? O ARGUMENTO DE STOUT A FAVOR DO AUTO-CONHECIMENTO, DA JUSTIFICAÇÃO POLÍTICA E DA FILOSOFIA PÚBLICA8TH BRAGA MEETINGS ON ETHICS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, WITH GUSTAF ARRHENIUSMust the participant to public discourse have knowledge of her beliefs, attitudes and reasons as well as belief-formation processes to have justified political belief? In this paper, we test this question with reference to Jeffrey Stout’s (2004) approach to public discourse and public philosophy. After defining selfknowledge and justification along the lines of James Pryor (2004), we map thereon Stout’s view of public discourse and public philosophy as democratic piety, earnest storytelling and Brandomian expressive rationality. We then lay out Brian Leiter’s (2016) naturalistic critique of public philosophy as “discursive hygiene” to see whether Stoutian public philosophy survives the former’s emotivist-tribalist gauntlet. Lastly, we find that Leiter’s critique proves less radical than it may appear and requires the moderating influence of a public philosophy like Stout’s. All in all, Stoutian public discourse and public philosophy powerfully illustrates a strong, necessary connection between self-knowledge and political justification. Post-truth is not post-justification.Será que quem participa no discurso público tem de ter conhecimento das suas crenças, atitudes e razões, bem como dos processos de formação de crenças, de forma a ter crenças políticas justificadas? Neste artigo, testamos esta questão tendo como referência a abordagem de Jeffrey Stout (2004) ao discurso público e à filosofia pública. Depois de definirmos auto-conhecimento e justificação seguindo James Pryor (2004), aplicamos a perspectiva de Stout do discurso público e da filosofia pública como piedade democrática, narração honesta e racionalidade expressiva brandomiana. Em seguida, apresentamos a crítica naturalista de Brian Leiter (2016) à filosofia pública como “higiene discursiva” para determinar se a filosofia pública tal como a concebe Stout sobrevive ao desafio emotivista-tribalista daquele. Finalmente, concluímos que a crítica de Leiter é menos radical do que poderia parecer e requer a influência moderadora de uma filosofia pública como a de Stout. Afinal, o discurso público e a filosofia pública que Stout defende ilustram de forma poderosa uma conexão forte e necessária entre auto-conhecimento e justificação política. A pós-verdade não é pós-justificação.Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho2023-09-26info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://doi.org/10.21814/eps.1.1.55eng2184-25822184-2574Burks, Deveninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-01-29T10:56:31Zoai:journals.uminho.pt:article/4657Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T01:58:41.376862Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY ESTAREMOS NA ÉPOCA DA PÓS-JUSTIFICAÇÃO? O ARGUMENTO DE STOUT A FAVOR DO AUTO-CONHECIMENTO, DA JUSTIFICAÇÃO POLÍTICA E DA FILOSOFIA PÚBLICA |
title |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY |
spellingShingle |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY Burks, Deven 8TH BRAGA MEETINGS ON ETHICS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, WITH GUSTAF ARRHENIUS |
title_short |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY |
title_full |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY |
title_fullStr |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY |
title_full_unstemmed |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY |
title_sort |
ARE WE POST-JUSTIFICATION? STOUT’S CASE FOR SELF-KNOWLEDGE, POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION AND PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY |
author |
Burks, Deven |
author_facet |
Burks, Deven |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Burks, Deven |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
8TH BRAGA MEETINGS ON ETHICS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, WITH GUSTAF ARRHENIUS |
topic |
8TH BRAGA MEETINGS ON ETHICS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, WITH GUSTAF ARRHENIUS |
description |
Must the participant to public discourse have knowledge of her beliefs, attitudes and reasons as well as belief-formation processes to have justified political belief? In this paper, we test this question with reference to Jeffrey Stout’s (2004) approach to public discourse and public philosophy. After defining selfknowledge and justification along the lines of James Pryor (2004), we map thereon Stout’s view of public discourse and public philosophy as democratic piety, earnest storytelling and Brandomian expressive rationality. We then lay out Brian Leiter’s (2016) naturalistic critique of public philosophy as “discursive hygiene” to see whether Stoutian public philosophy survives the former’s emotivist-tribalist gauntlet. Lastly, we find that Leiter’s critique proves less radical than it may appear and requires the moderating influence of a public philosophy like Stout’s. All in all, Stoutian public discourse and public philosophy powerfully illustrates a strong, necessary connection between self-knowledge and political justification. Post-truth is not post-justification. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-09-26 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.1.1.55 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.1.1.55 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
2184-2582 2184-2574 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799137071281995776 |