مفهوم داوری سیاسی و نسبت آن با تعددگرایی در اندیشۀ هانا آرنت و مارتا نوسبام

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

2 دانش آموخته دکتری علوم سیاسی گرایش اندیشه سیاسی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

چکیده

در فلسفۀ سیاسی غرب، مفهوم «داوری» همواره به‌عنوان یک «حق» درنظر گرفته شده که با وضعیت مدنی درهم‌تنیده است. به تعبیر کانت، اساساً وضعیت مدنی به معنای حق مشاجره و رقابتِ «داوری مردم» و «حاکمان» با یکدیگر است؛ حقی که به‌واسطۀ آن و به‌صورت خودآیین، داوری مطلوب را در زندگی مدنی به‌کار ببرند. مفهوم داوری سرنوشت دیگری نیز داشته است؛ اینکه آیا «ادراک و دریافت ما از چیزها»، باید تابع الگوها و استانداردهای ثابت از قبل تعیین‌شده باشد یا هر شهروند داوری خاص خودش را می‌سازد. ازاین‌رو داوری سیاسی از جهتی اساسی و انتقادی با تعددگرایی یا تکثرگرایی پیوند می‌خورد، چراکه بسیاری از متفکران سیاسی وجود استانداردهای واحد در امر داوری را خالی از اشکال نمی‌دانند. هانا آرنت و مارتا نوسبام از جملۀ این فیلسوفان هستند که مواجهه‌ای فلسفی و سیاسی را با مفهوم داوری آغاز کرده‌اند. این دو متفکر تحت تأثیر مفهوم «فرونسیسِ» ارسطویی و کارکرد آن در شرایط و موقعیت‌های خاص و تغییرپذیر، می‌کوشند برداشتی تعددگرا از داوری سیاسی ارائه دهند که در پی استوارسازی زندگی خوب و سعادتمندانه بر مبنای قرائتی سیاسی/هنجاری است. در این مقاله ابتدا نسبت داوری و تعددگرایی سنجیده شده و پس از آن آن وجوه اشتراک و افتراق این دو فیلسوف در این زمینه ارزیابی می‌شود.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Concept of Political Judgment and Its Relation to Pluralism in the Thought of Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum

نویسندگان [English]

  • Seyed Ali Reza Hosseini Beheshti 1
  • Mahmoud Alipour 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Tarbiat Modares University
2 PhD in Political Science, Tarbiat Modares University
چکیده [English]

In Western political philosophy, the concept of judgment is considered as a right, which is related to civil status. In Kant's view, civil status basically means argument and competition between "people’s judgement" and "rulers" with each other. Citizens apply some kind of desirable judgment in civil life by using this right and autonomously. At the same time, the concept of judgment had another fate: it sought to find an answer to the question of whether "our perceptions of things" should be subject to fixed patterns and pre-established standards, or should each citizen make his or her own judgment? Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum are among the philosophers who have begun a philosophical and political confrontation with the concept of judgment. Influenced by the Aristotelian concept of phronesis and its function in specific and changing circumstances, these two thinkers try to offer a pluralistic conception of political judgment, which seeks to establish a good and Eudaemonist life based on a political-normative reading. Using a comparative method, the authors have tried to evaluate the relationship between judgment and pluralism in the thought of these two philosophers. In addition, they express the commonalities and differences between these two philosophers in the field of political judgment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Political Judgment
  • Pluralism
  • Hannah Arendt
  • Martha Nussbaum
  • Normative Political Philosophy

مراجع

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. آرنت، هانا (1394). حیات (زندگی) ذهن، ترجمة مسعود علیا، تهران: ققنوس.
    2. ارسطو (1385). اخلاق نیکوماخوس، محمدحسن لطفی، تهران: طرح نو.
    3. ریتزر،جرج (۱۳۹۴). نظریه‌هایجامعه‌شناسیدردورانمعاصر،محسنثلاثی،تهران:علمی.
    4. نوسبام، مارتا (1389). ارسطو، ترجمة عزت‌الله فولادوند، تهران: طرح نو.
    5. یونسی، مصطفی  (1387). نسبتفلسفۀسیاسیوفلسفۀزبانافلاطون، فرهنگ صبا، تهران: رخداد نو.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

     

    1. Arendt, H. (1993a). ‘The Crisis in Culture’ in H. Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, New York: Penguin Books.
    2. ------------ (1993b). ‘The Concept of History’, in H. Arendt, Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, New York: Penguin Books.
    3. ------------- (1993c). The promise of politics  Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
    4. ------------- (1958). The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
    5. --------------- (1968) .Between Past and Future, New York: Viking Press.
    6. ------------- (1992). The Life of the Mind, Ronald Beiner (ed.), Chicago:  University of Chicago Press.
    7. ------------ (2003). Responsibility and Judgment, Jerome Kohn (ed.), New York: Schocken Books.
    8. ------------ (2006). Truth and Politics, in Between Past and Future: Eight exercises in political thought, New York: Penguin.
    9. -------------- (1992). Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy, Ronald Beiner (ed.), Chicago University of Chicago Press.
    10. --------------- (2004). ‘Philosophy and Politics’, Social Research, Johns Hopkins University Press, Vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 427-454.
    11. Augustine (1998). City of God, trans. by R.W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
    12. Azmanova, Albena (2012). The Scandal of Reason: A Critical Theory of Political Judgment, New York: Columbia University Press.
    13. Beiner, R. (2001). ‘Rereading Hannah Arendt’s Kant Lectures.’ in R. Beiner and J. Nedelsky (eds.), Judgment, Imagination, and Politics: Themes from Kant and Arendt. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    14. Beiner, Ronald (1983). Political Judgment, New York: Routledge.
    15. Beiner, Ronald (1992). What’s The Matter With Liberalism?, University of California Press.
    16. Benhabib, Seyla (1988). “Judgment and the Moral Foundations of Politics in Arendt's Thought”, Political Theory, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 29-51.
    17. Berlin, I. (2001). ‘My Intellectual Path’ in I. Berlin, The Power of Ideas, (ed.) H. Harvey, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    18. Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and Method, (trans.) J. Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall, London.
    19. Habermas, J. (1995). ‘Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism’, Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 109-131.
    20. Haflidson, Ron (2014). Saint Augustine on the Role of the Holy Spirit in Judgment, thesis for Postgraduate Degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh.
    21. Strauss, Leo, (1988). ‘What Is Political Philosophy?’ And Other Studies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    22. Mcgeer, Victoria and Pettit, Philip (2009). ‘Sticky Judgment and the Role of Rhetoric’, in Political Judgment: Essays for John Dunn, Richard Bourke and Raymond Geuss (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    23. Nedelsky, J. (2001). ‘Judgment, Diversity, and Relational Autonomy’ in R. Beiner and J. Nedelsky (eds.), Judgment, Imagination, and Politics: Themes from Kant and Arendt, Lanham: MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    24. Nussbaum, M., (2011). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, New York: Harvard University Press.
    25. ---------------- (2013). Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
    26. -------------------- (2011b) ‘Perfectionist Liberalism and Political Liberalism’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 3-45.
    27. ----------------- (2001). Upheavals of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    28. ----------------- (2001b). ‘Political Objectivity’, New Literary History, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 883-906.
    29. ----------------- (2004). ‘Emotions as Judgment of Value and Importance’, in Thinking about Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotions, Robert C. Solomon (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    30. ---------------- (2000). ‘Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities: A Response to Antony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan’, Ethics. Vol. 111, pp.102-140.
    31. Palmer, John (2017). Contradiction and Aporia in Early Greek Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    32. Rawls, John (1995). Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
    33. ------------------- (2001).Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    34. Sen, A. K. (2004). ‘Capabilities, lists, and public reason: continuing the conversation’, Feminist Economics, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 77-80.
    35. Sorabji, Richard (2002). Emotion and Peace of Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    36. Steinberger P.J (1993). The concept of Political Judgment, The University of Chicago Press, ix.
    37. Taylor, D. (2012). ‘Hannah Arendt on Judgement: Thinking for Politics’, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol.10, No. 2, pp. 151-169.
    38. Tetlock, Philip E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    39. Vila, Dana (1999). ‘The Philosopher Versus the Citizen: Arendt, Strauss, and Socrates’, Political Theory, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 147-172 .
    40. Zerilli, Linda M.G (2006). ‘Truth and Politics’, Theory and Event, Vol. 9 , No.4.
    41. --------------- (2016). A Democratice Theory of Judgment, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    42. -------------- (2015). ‘Judgment’, The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, Michael T. Gibbons (ed.), London: Blackwell.
فصلنامه سیاست
دوره 51، شماره 1
خرداد 1400
صفحه 99-132

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 11 شهریور 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 07 آذر 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 07 آذر 1399

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار