Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961

The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality indifferent disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object?Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger's aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger's philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being (Dasein), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth¿s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the frameworkof realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures inquantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines.

Aspectos didácticos en bioética intercultural

Los dilemas éticos suscitados por etnias practicantes del infanticidio cultural ejemplifican situaciones interculturales conflictivas que la enseñanza de una bioética pragmática basada en casuística no capacita para enfrentar. Para entablar una comunicación interétnica, se propone que el profesional sanitario debiera habilitarse en cinco ejes de deliberación, tres de ellos sustantivos y dos formales: a) Rechazar prácticas globalmente inaceptables o, alternativamente, reconocerlas como válidas en una cultura local; b) Reconocer valores universales o aceptar el relativismo ético cultural; c) Defender una moral común vinculante dentro de un territorio nacional o aceptar la coexistencia de pluralismos discrepantes; d) Deliberar el infanticidio como una práctica comparable al aborto procurado o entender que se basa en visiones de mundo no interpretables como análogas a argumentos de la bioética tradicional; e) Esclarecer acaso las disidencias culturales son problemas a solucionar o prácticas foráneas a tolerar. Cada vez más los dilemas interculturales requieren una enseñanza de bioética ampliada para habilitar al educando a desarrollar competencias de reflexión, de acuerdo a estos ejes de deliberación, en fomento de la comunicación intercultural respetuosa y un pluralismo efectivo.

Proceedings from the conference Visibility and Collaboration of Researchers in Intercultural Communication in Finland - Visibilité et collaboration de la recherche en interculturel en Finlande

This document contains papers that were presented at the conference “Enhancing the Visibility and Collaboration of Researchers in Intercultural Communication in Finland” which took place at the University of Turku (Finland), on October 1st & 2nd 2004. A paper version of some of the following papers as well as articles by specialists in intercultural communication will be published by Peter Lang.

Corporate responsibility guaranteed by dialogue? Examining the relationship between nongovernmental organizations and business

The main objective of this doctoral dissertation is to examine the relationship between non-governmental organizations and business in the context of academic discourse, corporate responsibility discourse, and stakeholder dialogue. More specifically, motivated by the increasing emphasis on stakeholder dialogue as a tool for corporate responsibility and accountability, the aim is to critically assess the role of stakeholder dialogue as a self-regulatory mechanism, in particular from the perspective of foreign direct investments. The study comprises two parts; an introductory essay containing the research objectives, theoretical foundations and methodological choices, and four research articles that address one sub-objective: 1) to review the literature on NGO-business relations in business and society, management, and international business journals from 1998–2007; 2) to critically analyze the academic discourse on NGO-business relations; 3) to analyze the problematic aspects of sustainable foreign direct investments as a conceptual construct; and 4) to analyze the problematic aspects of stakeholder dialogue in connection with a foreign direct investment. The ontological and epistemological foundations of this dissertation build on the social constructionist view of reality. The dialogue in this study is viewed as a legitimacy bargaining process that is actively shaped by societal parties in discourse. Similarly, articulations of ‘partnership’ and ‘adversarial’ in NGO-business relations in academic business and society discourse are viewed as competing hegemonic interventions in the field. More specifically, the methods applied in the articles are literature review (Article 1), discourse theory (Article 2), conceptual analysis (Article 3), and case study with document analysis (Article 4). This dissertation has three main arguments and contributions. First, it is argued that the potential of stakeholder dialogue as a tool for corporate responsibility and accountability is inherently limited in both contexts. Second, the study shows the power implications of privileging partnership oriented NGO-business relations over adversarial ones, and of placing business at the centre of governance discourse. The third contribution is methodological: a new way to analyze academic discourse is presented by focusing on the problem setting of an article.

¿Que moral para un derecho intercultural?: la autonomía y el concepto "simpliciter" de tolerancia

El objetivo del presente trabajo es doble. En primer lugar, pretendo defender un concepto simpliciter de tolerancia según el cual la autonomía personal o la necesidad de fortalecer una cultura son las únicas razones que debe ponderar el agente-Estado para tolerar. En segundo lugar, pretendo responder afirmativamente a la pregunta de si puede el liberalismo perfeccionista y multicultural de Joseph Raz sostener desde la teoría moral y política un derecho intercultural. Para cumplir estos objetivos, me concentraré en los usos morales del término tolerar para luego siguiendo a Michael Sandel, analizar los casos de tolerancia crítica y no crítica. Posteriormente, desarrollaré el liberalismo de Raz con el fin de mostrar los problemas teóricos que genera el fundamento de los derechos colectivos. Concluiré afirmando la existencia de derechos colectivos como recurso institucional para permitir el desarrollo de grupos culturales minoritarios dentro del actual desarrollo del Estado- nación.