| Research Abstract |
At First in this period, I tried to localize the moral relativism in the Enlightenment and Romanticism (Diderot, Chateaubriand, etc,) in the 18^<th> century; Through this readings, I found that the relation between Relativism and the thoughts of Tolerance is very complex and paradoxical. Fortunately, I was given a chance to read a paper on this issue at the Symposium ("Relativism and Universalism") of the Philosophical Society of Japan (May, 2002). In this paper, I argued from the viewpoint of contemporary philosophy, the following is this outline.
(1)It is usually said that the relativism is right (desirable) because it brings us the attitude of tolerance. (Montaigne, anthropological thinking)
(2)0n the other side, it is also said that is is wrong because it brings the nihilism or anything-goes-philosophy. (Sandel)
(3)But, the cliche that relativism brings tolerance, which the both sides of (1) and (2) share, is problematical. Because, The moral of tolerance is a moral (liberalism) itself, and if a relativist asserts the moral of tolerance as an universal value, The relativism will fall in a self-contradiction. (B. Williams)
(4)Nevertheless, in the same time, (3) shows that relativism has the possibility to fall down in an completely opposite side; the attitude of anti-tolerance.
(5)The above is a vicious circle of relativism concerning the tolerance. But, it can be seen not only in relativism, but also in universalism or absolutism.
(6)In order to find a way out of this vicious circle, we have to destroy a tacit premise shared by the both sides. This common presupposition is the way of regarding different cultures (moral communities) as incommensurable axiomatic systems. In this view, the Pragmatism of R. Rorty gives us an important suggestion.
In sum, it was the biggest result for me that I could bring the problem in the field of contemporary philosophy, including the communitarian/Libertarian controversy.
|
