|Published online: April 04, 2014||$US5.00|
Interreligious and intercultural dialogue is supposed to be the best way to solve the conflicts arising from rival religious hermeneutics and different modes to conceive of the ideal of a good life in contemporary multicultural and pluralistic societies. In regard to communicative or dialogical reason, respectful coexistence can be reached only by argumentative communication between interested people. In this sense, only rational arguments strong enough to pass the test of the shared rationality can be valid at a discursive level.
However, Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas and Catholic theologian Johann Baptist Metz challenge the symmetrical and rational-based dialogue in order to postulate an asymmetrical relation by giving voice to the other. For them, the core of interreligious and intercultural engagement does not start from rational agreements as Habermas, for instance, has proposed, but from prophetic and anamnestic reasons.
This analytical and comparative presentation will show the possibilities of the anamnestic reason and religion as service against dialogical reason in intercultural and interreligious contexts. Levinas’s and Metz’s criticism of dialogical reason opens new perspectives, which contribute to the reflexion for both political theology and political philosophy.
|Keywords:||Interreligious, Intercultural, Dialogue|
The International Journal of Civic, Political, and Community Studies, Volume 11, Issue 2, April 2014, pp.13-22. Article: Print (Spiral Bound). Published online: April 04, 2014 (Article: Electronic (PDF File; 385.132KB)).
PhD Student, School of Humanities, Griffith University in Australia, Universidad Militar Nueva Granada in Colombia, The Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities, Griffith University, The Gold Coast, QLD, Australia