Pluralism Against The Demand For Consensus (The Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy)

Rescher, Nicholas

ISBN 10: 0198236018 / ISBN 13: 9780198236016

Published by Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995

About this Item

Octavo Size [approx 15.5 x 22.8cm]. Near Fine condition. An excellent copy. Robust, professional packaging and tracking provided for all parcels. viii, 208 pages. Professor Rescher's pluralist approach takes a more realistic and pragmatic line than that of Habermasâ neo-contractarian theory and Rawlsâ social-contract version. It eschews the convenient recourse of idealization in cognitive and practical matters. Instead of a utopianism that looks to a uniquely perfect order that would prevail under ideal conditions, he advocates incremental improvements within the framework or arrangements that none of us will deem perfect but that all of us 'can live with'. Such an approach replaces the yearning tor unattainable consensus with the institution of pragmatic arrangements in which the community will acquiesce - not through agreeing on their optimality, but through a shared recognition among the dissonant parties that the available options are even worse.

Seller Inventory # 320545

Bibliographic Details

• Title: Pluralism Against The Demand For Consensus (The Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy)
• Publisher: Clarendon Press, Oxford
• Publication Date: 1995
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0198236018
• ISBN 13: 9780198236016
• Binding: Softcover
• Edition: 1st Paperback Edition.
• Condition: As New
• Seller catalogs:
  • Social Science

About this title

Synopsis

Nicholas Rescher presents a critical reaction against two currently influential tendencies of thought. On the one hand, he rejects the facile relativism that pervades contemporary social and academic life. On the other hand, he opposes the rationalism inherent in new-contractarian theory - both in the idealized communicative-contract version promoted in continental European political philosophy by Jurgen Habermas, and in the idealized social-contract version of the theory promoted in the Anglo-American context by John Rawls.

Against such tendencies, Professor Rescher's pluralist approach takes a more realistic and pragmatic line, eschewing the convenient recourse of idealization in cognitive and practical matters. Instead of a utopianism that looks to a uniquely perfect order that would prevail under ideal conditions, he advocates incremental improvements within the framework or arrangements that none of us will deem perfect but that all of us 'can live with'. Such an approach replaces the yearning tor an unattainable consensus with the institution of pragmatic arrangements in which the community will acquiesce - not through agreeing on their optimality, but through a shared recognition among the dissonant parties that the available options are even worse.

From the Back Cover

Nicholas Rescher presents a critical reaction against two currently influential tendencies of thought. On the one hand, he rejects the facile relativism that pervades contemporary social and academic life. On the other hand, he opposes the rationalism inherent in neo-contractarian theory - both in the idealized communicative-contract version promoted in continental European political philosophy by Jurgen Habermas, and in the idealized social-contract version of the theory of political justice promoted in the Anglo-American context by John Rawls. Against such tendencies, Professor Rescher's pluralist approach takes a more realistic and pragmatic line, eschewing the convenient recourse of idealization in cognitive and practical matters. Instead of a utopianism that looks to a uniquely perfect order that would prevail under ideal conditions, he advocates incremental improvements within the framework of arrangements that none of us will deem perfect but that all of us 'can live with'. Such an approach replaces the yearning for an unattainable consensus with the institution of pragmatic arrangements in which the community will acquiesce - not through agreeing on their optimality, but through a shared recognition among the dissonant parties that the available options are even worse.