This paper examines the differences between moralist, realist, and pragmatist approaches to political legitimacy by articulating their largely implicit views of judgment. Three claims are advanced... Show moreThis paper examines the differences between moralist, realist, and pragmatist approaches to political legitimacy by articulating their largely implicit views of judgment. Three claims are advanced. First, the salient opposition among approaches to legitimacy is not between “moralism” and “realism.” Recent realist proposals for rethinking legitimacy share with moralist views a distinctive form, called “normativism”: a quest for knowledge of principles that solve the question of legitimacy. This assumes that judging legitimacy is a matter of applying such principles to a case at hand. Second, neither Rawls nor Habermas is a normativist about political legitimacy. The principles of legitimacy they proffer claim to express rather than adjudicate the legitimacy of a liberal-democratic regime, and thus cannot solve the question of legitimacy at a fundamental level. But perhaps we should question the normativist aspiration to theoretically resolving the problem to begin with. My third claim is that a “pragmatist” approach enables us to rethink political legitimacy more deeply by shifting focus from the articulation of principles to the activity of judging. Implicit in Rawls and Habermas’s theories I then find clues towards an alternative account of judgment, in which the question of legitimacy calls not for theoretical resolution but for ongoing practical engagement. Show less
Based on philosophical pragmatism, this study builds a model of pragmatist crisis management at the political-strategic level and contrasts it with a principle-guided approach towards political... Show moreBased on philosophical pragmatism, this study builds a model of pragmatist crisis management at the political-strategic level and contrasts it with a principle-guided approach towards political crisis management. It identifies four cornerstons of pragmatist political crisis management and builds a model based on them: anti-dualism, fallibilism, experimentalism and deliberation.This model is applied by analyzing two key political decisions during the U.S. financial crisis: the decision to let the investment bank Bear Stearns fail and the decision to save Lehman Brothers. The empirical analysis reveals how the Bush administration engaged in pragmatist crisis management and overcame its political principles when saving Bear Stearns. The decision to let Lehman Brothers fail, however, is understood as a switch back to principle-guided crisis management. Show less
This thesis interprets the Japanese Buddhist master, Dōgen's metaphysical ideas concerning Buddha-nature, Total-function, and temporality, with the help of Deleuze's pragmatism, in a manner... Show moreThis thesis interprets the Japanese Buddhist master, Dōgen's metaphysical ideas concerning Buddha-nature, Total-function, and temporality, with the help of Deleuze's pragmatism, in a manner congruent with the central Buddhist doctrine of pratītyasamutpāda. In doing so, the research attempts to overcome the problems of what I view as the two opposing poles of Dōgen interpretation: that of the Critical Buddhists who deny Dōgen's metaphysics, claiming that it is in-congruent to pratītyasamutpāda, and the “Comparative Philosophers,” who affirms Dōgen's metaphysics yet in a manner that disregards pratītyasamutpāda. The research reconsiders Dōgen's above metaphysical concepts, of which Critical Buddhism and comparative interpretations gives a shortsighted picture inasmuch as they impose upon Dōgen a “representational epistemology.” This error prevents the former interpretations of Dōgen to acknowledge the potential that Dōgen's metaphysical concepts can have a practical use for an ethics centered on pratītyasamutpāda. Deleuze's philosophy, insofar as it is pragmatist and non-representational, can help to elucidate this limitation, and to create a reinterpretation of Dōgen's doctrine on Total-function, time and Buddha-nature to function as tools for spiritual practice in concurrence to pratītyasamutpāda. Ultimately, I claim that Dōgen's metaphysics is not descriptive or explanatory of reality, but are pragmatically functional tools incorporated into spiritual practice. Show less
