No abstract

The aim is to show how formations of discourse can be seen as the subject matter for the historian of religions, drawing on structuralist and hermeneutic approaches. Although these may differ on important theoretical and methodological issues, I find the way in which they correspond, namely by pointing to the topic of discourse as their field of investigation, even more important. In this article a discourse is understood as a framework of communication, and the focus is laid upon religious discourse as a special kind of authorization. In ancient Greece, for example, "authors" such as Homer and Orpheus were the authorities of two different discursive traditions. The analysis of discourse can present us with a view of how certain frames of communication were interacting by means of contest, and how, eventually, it was the very strategy of authorization that was contested. Hence, what has often been seen as a paradigmatic shift from mythos to logos could more fruitfully be viewed from a discursive angle than from a perspective of different mentalities. Discourse analysis, as presented in this article, is a way of coming to terms with the process of transformation by regarding dynamic properties of communication, that is, as interrelated strategies on connected levels of system and event.

I 2003 udgav Giovanna Borradori bogen, Philosophy in a Time of Terror, hvori hun interviewede Jacques Derrida og Jürgen Habermas om deres syn på de vestlige demokratiers selvforståelse i kølvandet på terror-angrebet 11. sept. 2001. Derrida og Habermas har traditionelt stået for to meget forskellige opfattelser af filosofiens rolle i en moderne, eftermetafysisk tænkning, men de kunne begge enes om, at Europa har en vigtig rolle at spille i den inter­nationale debat. Et af de centrale spørgsmål, der i samtalerne med Borradori blev taget op, var problemet omkring betydningen af tolerance i et forhold mellem religion og politik i den vestlige verden: Hvordan sikrer demokratiet sit eget grundlag? Hvad skal der til for at sikre en fredelig sameksistens i en moderne multikulturel og globaliseret verden? Hvad består respekt for hinanden i, og kan vi i praksis holde magt og ret ude fra hinanden? Denne artikel forsøger at redegøre for og forholde sig til diskussionen af disse spørgsmål

No abstract

While this article salutes attempts to use Donald Davidson’s principles of radical interpretation in the study of religion in order to avoid the pitfalls of correspondence theory of truth, on the one hand, and cultural relativism, on the other, it suggests that an adequate understanding of religion may also take other pragmatic aspects of meaning into account. Buying into Jürgen Habermas’ critique of Davidson, the more specific argument is that a differentiation of validity criteria serves to disclose the restricted role “truth” plays in speech acts. It is also argued that although Richard Rorty’s skepticism towards universal criteria of rationality borders on relativism, he is justified in focusing more radically—along with Robert Brandom—on pragmatic and situational criteria of meaning. Finally, drawing on Wittgenstein’s concept of “perspicuous representation” I suggest an alternate way of coming to grips with meaning potentials in religious ways of life.