SavedAdd your journal

Journals / FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2015 / Sayı: 20

A Comparison of Phronesis and Reflective Judgement

PHRONESİS VE DÜŞÜNÜMSEL YARGI ÜZERİNE BİR KARŞILAŞTIRMA

Hakan Çörekçioğlu(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Karşılaştırmalı Edebiyat Bölümü öğretim üyesi.)
Pages
1–16
Publication Date
2015-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this respect Kantian solution represents a more suitable alternative for the problem of political judgement todays

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this article is to compare the notion of Aristotle’s phronesis with the notion of Kant’s reflective judgement in the context of practical judgement.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Even though the both philosophers agree on the conceptualization of practical judgement as a collective and public deliberation, they differ in their approach to the relation of practical judgement to the contextual and the universal.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this respect Kantian solution represents a more suitable alternative for the problem of political judgement todays
🔬Design:Makale
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:politik yargı · ortak duyu · gelenek

Abstract

The aim of this article is to compare the notion of Aristotle’s phronesis with the notion of Kant’s reflective judgement in the context of practical judgement. Even though the both philosophers agree on the conceptualization of practical judgement as a collective and public deliberation, they differ in their approach to the relation of practical judgement to the contextual and the universal. Aristotle relates the practical judgement to historical and cultural context, but Kant seeks to derive the universal from the contextual. In this respect Kantian solution represents a more suitable alternative for the problem of political judgement todays

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı pratik yargı bağlamında Aristoteles’in phronesis anlayışı ile Kant’ın düşünümsel yargı anlayışını karşılaştırmaktır. Her iki filozof pratik yargıyı kolektif ve kamusal bir düşünme etkinliği olarak kavramsallaştırmaları bakımından uzlaşırlar. Ancak onlar arasında en büyük ayrım pratik yargının bağlamsallık ve evrensellikle ilişkisinde ortaya çıkar. Aristoteles pratik yargıyı tarihsel ve kültürel bağlamla ilişkilendirirken, Kant bağlamsal olandan evrenseli türetmeye çalışır. Bu açıdan Kantçı çözüm, günümüzün politik yargı sorununa daha elverişli bir alternatifi temsil eder

🔖

Cite This Article

Çörekçioğlu, H. (2015). A Comparison of Phronesis and Reflective Judgement. FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 20, 1–16. https://ajindex.com/articles/1143081

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Arendt, Hannah, “On Humanity in Dark Times”, Men in Dark Times, çev. Clara ve Richard Winston, Harvest, New York, 1968.
  2. , Das Urteilen: Texte zu Kants Politischer Philosophie, çev. Ursula Ludz, Piper, München, 1998.
  3. Aristoteles, “Rhetoric”, The Complete Works of Aristotle -I, ed. Jonathan Barnes, çev. Ernst Grumach, vol. II, Princeton University Press, USA, 1984
  4. , “Topics”, The Complete Works of Aristotle I, ed. Jonathan Barnes, çev. W. A. Pickard, Princeton University Press, USA, 1984.
  5. , “Politics”, The Complete Works of Aristotle - II, ed. Jonathan Barnes, çev. B. Jovett, Princeton University Press, USA, 1984, vol. II
  6. , Nicomachean Ethics, ed. ve çev. Roger Crisp, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
  7. , Nikomakhos'a Etik, çev. Saffet Babür, Ayraç Yayınları, Ankara, 1997.
  8. Beiner, Ronald & Nedelsky, Jennifer, “Introduction”, Judgement, Imagination and Politics, Rawman & Littlefield, Oxford, 2001.
  9. Beiner, Ronald, Political Judgment, Routledge, London, 2010.
  10. Benhabib, Şeyla, Modernizm, Evrensellik ve Birey, çev. Mehmet Küçük, Ayrıntı Yayınları, İstanbul, 1999.
  11. Çörekçioğlu, Hakan, “Aristoteles’in Retorik Teorisi: Politik Yaşamı Savunmak”, Felsefe Dünyası, sayı: 50, 2009/2, s.161-183.
  12. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method, çev. J. Weinsheiner and D. G. Marshall, Continuum, London, 2004.
  13. Kant, Immanuel, “Kritik der Urteilskraft”, Werkausgabe, Band X, ed. W. Weischedel, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1974.
  14. , “Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht”, Werkausgabe, Band XII, ed. W. Weischedel, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1974, s. 511.
  15. , “Logik, Werkausgabe, Band V, ed. W. Weischedel, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1974.
  16. , “Mutmasslicher Anfang der Menschengeschichte”, Band XI, Werkausgabe, ed. W. Weischedel, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1974
  17. Norris, Andrew “Arendt, Kant, and the Politics of Common Sense”, Polity, vol. 29, no: 2, 1996, s. 165-187
  18. Platon, “Phaedros”, Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper, çev. A. Nehamas ve P. Woodruff, Hackett, Cambridge, 1997.
  19. , “Republic, Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper, çev. G.M.A. Grube; C.D.C. Reeve, Hackett, Cambridge, 1997.
  20. Recki, Birgit, “Kendini Başka Herkesin Yerine Koyarak Düşünmek: Aklın