ديويدسن، هابرماس، و ايدۀ اينترسوبژكتيويته

Davidson, Habermas, and the Idea of Intersubjectivity

در اين مقاله، ابتدا مي‌كوشم توصيفِ مختصري از مسئلۀ كانونيِ فلسفۀ مدرن؛ يعني نسبت سوژه-اُبژه و راه‌حل‌هاي ممكن براي آن ارائه دهم. سپس مي‌كوشم با رهيافتِ مقايسه‌اي به توضيحِ نقاطِ مشتركِ راه‌حلِ دو فيلسوفِ معاصر، يعني ديويدسن و هابرماس، به اين مسئله بپردازم. اين راه‌حل كه بر ايدۀ اينترسوبژكتيويته تكيه دارد در اين حكم خلاصه مي‌شود كه رابطۀ سوژه و اُبژه در بستري اينترسوبژكتيو قوام مي‌يابد. نكتۀ مورد تأكيدِ اين مقاله اين است كه هرچند اين دو فيلسوف از چارچوب‌هاي فلسفيِ متفاوتي تغذيه مي‌كنند، ولي عملاً از جهتِ نحوۀ مواجهه اشان با اين مسئله همگرايي‌هاي زيادي دارند. بدين منظور، هدف اين است كه وجوهِ مشتركِ كارِ ايشان در چند بُعد تحليل و بررسي مي‌شوند: چرخش زباني؛ ايدۀ مثلث‌بندي در برابر جهان هاي سه‌گانه؛ «مفاهمه/ارتباط» به منزلۀ بنيادِ زبان؛ «عقلانيت مشتركِ» سوژه‌هاي زباني معرفتي: اصل همدلي در برابر ادّعاهاي اعتبار؛ و درنهايت ظرفيتِ «گفتگوي بيناشخصي» براي برقراريِ ارتباط بين انديشه‌ها يا چارچوب‌هاي فكريِ متفاوت.

One of the main issues in explaining the phenomenon of diversity of religions in the world is the issue of religions ranking; i.e. the question of whether religions are essentially comparable or not! an‎d if it is comparable, what is the criterion and criterion of this comparison? It seems that the border between two different positions in explaining the phenomenon of religious plurality, namely relativism and religious pluralism, comes from the accuracy of the issue of religions ranking. In this article, we will speak of two main representatives of these two trends by proposing and examining this problem and among the religious relativists we refer to Ernest Troeltsch and to John Hick from religious pluralism. This article seeks to put these two theories together and remind them of their similarities and reveal their fundamental differences. Briefly, it can be noted that the major similarity between Troeltsch and Hick is to rely on cultural categories in the consistency of religious awareness, while the fundamental difference between them is the observation of objectivity or subjectivity in their grading criteria. In the end, Hick claims that although religions are comparable in principle, but practically the result of this comparing is the equivalence of religion’s Truth-claims, while Troeltsch says it's basically impossible to compare religions, اowever, in his original statements, he clearly states that in practice, Christianity is superior to other religions. Of course, in his later remarks, he reviews this result and claims that religions are only relative in absolute terms and he claims absolute religions are relative only.