Thinking Our Common World. Conditions of Intercultural Coexistence in Jürgen Habermas andEilert Herms

不同的文化和宗教如何在同一个世界共存？在我们这个联系日益紧密的世界中，越来越多的社会问题需要全球化的答案。人们可能会想到气候变化、金融市场监管和安全政策等问题。国际社会必须共同解决这些问题。但在什么基础上才能解决这些问题呢？虽然有些人认为，由于文化的冲突，共同理解是困难或不可能的（塞缪尔亨廷顿），其他人认为，人类是通过普遍的原因连接。那么，我们能为一个共同的世界而思考和争论吗？我的工作旨在通过观察宗教和理性的相互关系来分析使共存成为可能的条件。为此目的，我分析了哲学家尤尔根·哈贝马斯和神学家艾勒特·赫姆斯的著作，他们的立场可以被视为在根本上相互对立。对于哈贝马斯来说，交往理性是核心，因为它连接并使我们能够在普遍的基础上交换我们的论点。一方面，对哈贝马斯来说，奴隶制变得更加重要，因为他认为奴隶制在维系社会团结方面发挥着根本性的作用。但它们并不影响交流过程中的原因和论点的交流。从一开始，这种对推理理性的公开使用就是针对整个人类的。因此，它是平等与和平发展的全球宪法的<$postnational星座<$（哈贝马斯）。对赫耳墨斯来说，我们对世界的看法是由我们对生活的看法来定义的，而生活的看法又是基于宗教经验的。人类最基本的区别是宗教差异。理性的运用总是依赖于这种差异。没有一个普遍的理由可以引导我们走向一个平等的社会。我们需要理解并解决我们的分歧。因此，全球化的难题只能在尊重人性的基础上解决，这对赫耳墨斯来说意味着理解宗教观点在政治、经济甚至科学中的基本作用。我自己的作品试图通过展示宗教和理性可能是竞争性的力量，但它们也有互补的作用，将这些主角的见解联合收割机结合起来。特殊性和普遍性都是人类理解和能动性的核心要素，两者在塑造一个共同世界的过程中发挥着至关重要的作用。关于如何在不断发展的世界社会中处理我们的宗教差异的讨论性交流是给予平等与和平共处机会的唯一可能方式。

How can different cultures and religions coexist in one world? In our increasingly connected world a growing number of societal issues require globalized answers. One may think of problems like climate change, the regulation of financial markets and security policies. The world-community must tackle these problems together. But on what basis can these be addressed? Whereas some posit that a common understanding is difficult or impossible due to the clash of cultures (Samuel Huntington), others argue that humanity is connected through universal reason. So can we think and argue for a common world?My work aims at analyzing the conditions of making coexistence possible by looking at the interrelationship of religion and reason. For this purpose I analyse the works of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas and the theologian Eilert Herms whose positions can be seen as opposing each other in a fundamental manner. For Habermas communicative reason is central for it connects and enables us to exchange our arguments on a universal basis. Religions on the one hand have become more important to Habermas as he sees that they play a fundamental role in holding societies together. But they are not of influence to the communicative process in the exchange of reasons and arguments. From the start this public use of discursive reason is aimed at humanity as a whole. Insofar it is essential for the egalitarian and peaceful development of a global constitution for the ¿postnational constellation¿ (Habermas). For Herms our outlook on the world is defined by our vision of life, which in turn is based on religious experience. The most basic distinction of human beings is religious difference. The use of reason is always dependent on this difference. There is no universal reason which can guide us toward an egalitarian society. We need to understand and work through our differences. Hence the difficult issues of globalization can only be dealt with in respecting the nature of humanity, which for Herms means understanding the fundamental role religious outlooks play in politics, economics and even science. My own work attempts to combine the insights of these protagonists by showing that religion and reason may be rivaling forces, but they also have complementary roles. Both the particular and the universal are core elements of human understanding and agency, both play essential parts in the process of shaping a common world. The discursive exchange of arguments about how our religious differences can be dealt with in the growing world-society is the only possible manner of giving egalitarian and peaceful coexistence a chance.