The Method of Levels of Abstraction in Pluralism and Governance of Dialogical Interaction

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Stephen Rainey
• 关键词：Philosophy of information ; Dialogue ; Levels of abstraction ; Epistemology ; Politics ; Europe
• 刊名：Topoi
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：April 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：35
• 期：1
• 页码：191-201
• 全文大小：401 KB
• 参考文献：Anscombe E (1958) Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy 33(124):1–19CrossRef
  Broadbent S (2013) Onlife intitiative. https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​digital-agenda/​sites/​digital-agenda/​files/​Onlife_​Initiative.​pdf . Accessed May 2013
  Cohen J (1999) Habermas on democracy. Ratio Juris 12(4):385–416CrossRef
  Floridi L (2002a) What is the philosophy of information? Metaphilosophy 33(1/2):123–145CrossRef
  Floridi L (2002b) Philosophy and computing: an introduction. Routledge, London
  Floridi L (2006) ‘Information ethics, its nature and scope’. ACM SIGCAS Comput Soc 36(3):21–36CrossRef
  Floridi L (2008) The method of levels of abstraction. Minds Mach 18(3):303–329CrossRef
  Floridi L (2011) The philosophy of information. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
  Floridi L (2012) Distributed morality in an information society. Sci Eng Ethics 1–17. doi:10.​1007/​s11948-012-9413-4
  Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston
  Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC, Parmar B, de Colle S (2010) Stakeholder theory: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
  Habermas J (1981) The theory of communicative action. Polity, Cambridge
  Habermas J (1998) Between facts and norms (W. Rehg, Tran.) MIT Press, Cambridge
  Lund W (1996) Egalitarian liberalism and the fact of pluralism. J Soc Philos 27(3):61–80CrossRef
  McCarthy T (1994) Kantian constructivism and reconstructivism: rawls and habermas in dialogue. Ethics 105(1):44–63CrossRef
  Rainey S (2013) Competing methodologies: possibilities from a point of view. In: Doridot F (eds) Ethical governance of emerging technologies development. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 296–311
  Rawls J (1987) The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxf J Legal Stud 7(1):1–25
  Rawls J (1988) The priority of right and ideas of the good. Philos Public Aff 17(4):251–276
  Raz J (1986) The morality of freedom. Clarendon Press, New York (also cited in Mulhall, S., & Swift, A. (1992). Liberals and Communitarians Oxford: Blackwell)
  Rhodes RAW (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Political Stud XLIV:652–657
  Simon H (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New York
  Smismans S (2006) Reviewing normative theories on civil society participation. NewGov project, University of Trento, cf. http://​www.​eu-newgov.​org/​datalists/​deliverables_​detail.​asp?​Project_​ID=​11 . Accessed May 2013
  Wheeler M (2011) ‘Martin Heidegger’. In: Zalta E (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2011 edn). http://​plato.​stanford.​edu/​archives/​win2011/​entries/​heidegger/​ . Accessed May 2013
  
• 作者单位：Stephen Rainey (1)
  
  1. St. Mary’s University, Waldegrave Road, Twickenham, TW1 4SX, UK
  
• 刊物类别：Humanities, Social Sciences and Law
• 刊物主题：Philosophy
  Philosophy
  Philosophy of Science
  Philosophy of Technology
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1572-8749

文摘

This paper deploys elements of the philosophy of information (PoI) in order to explore ideas of dialogical governance. Dialogue in the governance of contentious issues is at least partly a response to the recognition of pluralism among perspectives on various issues. This recognition is prevalent in the context of European governance. However, it is a first step to a better understanding of diverging opinion, rather than an end point. This paper argues that the PoI offers a fruitful path to follow up this first step. Specifically, PoI provides epistemological tools that can be used to clarify the meanings of terms and relevance of perspectives at issue in dialogical scenarios. Importantly, this approach revises the enlightenment view of the individual, offering a more nuanced and ultimately more accurate view of the self as internally complex. This represents a step beyond the status quo wherein these things are taken as unproblematic. This paper argues that PoI’s resources ought to feature as a methodological background to a reinvigorated dialogical governance paradigm. This method and these resources can inform an improved view of dialogical governance in Europe and, in their generality, beyond.