First published in 1993. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

"Modernity versus Postmodernity," Jü rgen Habermas. Critical Rejoinders: Fred Dallmayr. Christopher Norris. David C. Hoy. James Schmidt. Joel Whitebook. ThematicReformulations: James Bohman. Diana Coole. Jay M. Bernstein. David Ingram.

In recent years, a number of prominent thinkers have argued that democratic arrangements tend to favour the flourishing of toleration among groups with radically different comprehensive worldviews. This article examines one of the most insightful arguments, advanced by Sheldon Leader, for grounding the practice of toleration on the value of democracy. It shows that Leader's attempt to ground the practice of toleration on a common understanding of democracy faces a number of fundamental obstacles. Such obstacles could only be overcome if (...) both liberals and their opponents were to reach an agreement on the value of democracy and thereby converge in their support for toleration. It argues that, far from providing a common ground that liberals and their opponents can share, the so?called ?shareable understanding? of democracy appeals primarily to liberals. (shrink)

The public and private distinction is essential to our moral and political vocabularies as it continues to structure our social and legal practices. Public and Private provides a multidisciplinary perspective on this distinction which has been at the centre of controversial debate in recent years. The focus of the debate has been on delineating acceptable boundaries between public and private in economic, social and cultural spheres. What is the nature and scope of citizenship? What are the implications of new reproductive (...) technologies? And what is the fate of state sovereignty in a globalised world economy? At first glance these questions may appear unrelated, yet they all raise underlying and serious concerns regarding the scope and proper boundaries between the public and the private. Public and Private will stimulate the current debate with its original approach and provide a valuable resource for all those interested in the role the public and private play in structuring our societies. (shrink)

In this article I reconstruct Hannah Arendt's theory of judgment around a number of key themes. After having distinguished two models of judgment, one based on the standpoint of the actor, the other on the standpoint of the spectator, I go on to examine their most distinctive features, in particular the link between judgment, the imagination, and the ability to think ?representatively.? I also examine the philosophical sources of Arendt's theory of judgment, namely, Kant's theory of aesthetic judgment and Aristotle's (...) notion of phronesis. In the final section I address the question of judgment and its criteria of validity.1. (shrink)