This paper explores whether practical philosophy can offer a new approach to the problem of religious truth, taking the current competition between various conceptions of the good life and their associated core values as a starting point. After a sociological analysis and a philosophical interpretation of the controversy between universal human values and particular cultural values, including religious values, I examine two ways of dealing with this controversy, namely the non-relativist and the non-exclusivist approach. In addition to the traditional view that religious diversity enriches our understanding of values, I am particularly interested in the idea that particular religious values can have a universal significance and contribute to our understanding of what constitutes a good life.

This chapter examines Jacobi’s critique of traditional philosophical theology and what he considered to be its conceptual annihilation of the reality of God. What emerges is that Jacobi had a refined understanding of the seductive workings of instrumental reason, proposing an alternative philosophical theology by which immediate faith in God must be confirmed in reflection.

Cet article se concentre sur le contrecoup sociopolitique de la pandémie de Covid-19 et utilise le cadre de la philosophie de Hegel pour l’analyser. Premièrement, l’article étudie les protestations de principe de diverses personnes contre les mesures imposées par l’État pour contrôler la pandémie. Sur la base de l’analyse de Hegel de la double reconnaissance entre l’État et ses membres, sur laquelle reposent les démocraties modernes, on soutient que ces protestataires de principe refusent de reconnaître l’État comme l’effectivité de la liberté publique, soulignant ainsi la fragilité inhérente des États modernes. Pour justifier leurs positions, les contestataires ont argué qu’ils ne se sentent pas reconnus par l’État. Comme solution à ce problème, il est suggéré que l’État doit développer de nouvelles façons d’intégrer ces personnes, non seulement à travers son cadre juridique et institutionnel, mais aussi sur le plan économique et socioculturel. Deuxièmement, l’article réfléchit à l’impact de la pandémie sur les relations interétatiques à l’aide de la thèse de Hegel selon laquelle un lien fédérant les nations européennes pourrait régler pacifiquement les conflits entre les États dans cette région du monde. On avance pour finir que l’impact mondial de la pandémie et de nombreuses autres crises (changement climatique, répartition inégale des richesses, etc.) crée un terrain d’entente, offrant une raison d’étendre l’approche européenne de résolution des crises interétatiques à d’autres parties du globe.

The paper offers a critical examination of the term ‘reasonable comprehensive doctrines’, which is a key term in Rawls’s Political Liberalism. It is argued that this term is not accurate anymore to catch the current shape of religious and secular worldviews and the nature of their truth claims, because it focuses too much on the doctrinal character of religious truth, which plays a central role in Christianity but not in many other religions and secular worldviews. However, sociologists of religion and philosopher Charles Taylor have pointed out that a shift in people’s attitude towards religion has been taking place since the last decades of the twentieth century, resulting in a more existential and less doctrinal approach to religious truth. This focus on ‘lived religion’, inspiring the faithful put their lives in the sign of (the truth of) these doctrines, explains why Rawls’s doctrinal approach falls short of expectations in finding a response to the challenge of religious pluralism. Yet, in the conclusion of this paper it is shown that Rawls also values witnessing as an alternative, more existential approach to religious truth, although it plays a rather marginal role in his work.

This chapter argues that religious violence can be interpreted as resulting from the disproportion between the transcendent, elusive character of the divine and the need of a religious community for identity. This explains why the divine has to be contained in finite, human categories. Inevitably, these categories mark the distinction between inclusion and exclusion, as well as between orthodoxy and heresy. Hence, religious violence can be explained as a problematic reaction to the threat of the loss of religious identity. Against this background, the final section explores how this reaction can be averted. Paradoxically, the very absoluteness of God and of religious truth that critics of religion often see as monotheism's greatest weakness becomes a resource for identifying religious violence as a religious failure to admit one's own fundamental limitations in understanding the divine. Hence, faithful are called upon to practise the virtues of epistemic humility and religious hospitality in their dealings with other religions.

The book Filsafat Dan Kearifan Dalam Agama Dan Budaya Lokal is written to improve the quality of research in the field of philosophy and the values of local wisdom, besides being able to describe, analyze, synthesize, interpret, evaluate, and reflect on various kinds of theories and practical problems in a philosophical perspective. Able to solve various problems in society philosophically. This book is also able to communicate philosophical ideas in writing and solve problems in social life.This book is a form of dissemination. Part of the results of research conducted by lecturers at the Faculty of Philosophy UGM who have diverse interests and expertise with the aim of being enjoyed by a wide audience of readers. Thus, academic thoughts and recommendations on various scientific, national and humanitarian issues resulting from research activities can be socialized and can be used as a reference and inspiration for various interested parties. Starting from academics, researchers, bureaucracy, to the general public.The book presents a variety of new information for a wide audience which is packaged attractively through various aspects such as the relationship between philosophy and religion and philosophy with local culture. We know that philosophy with religion and local culture is very contradictory, but this book can answer that philosophy can link up with local culture and religion.The book needs to be reviewed because the information presented in this book is very interesting to review. Why is that? Because this book explores and explores local wisdom that exists in local culture and religion through a philosophical approach. A philosophical approach to scientific development can be done by exploring and developing philosophical aspects in the various branches of philosophy and science.

This book deals with the intellectual aspects of having diverse religious expressions in proximity and the socio-political consequences. It provides a multi-disciplinary perspective on this complex subject, cross-fertilizing work on religious plurality with truth-claims from theologians as well as philosophers from the continental and analytic traditions. The book includes three major parts. Part 1 explores the ideas around religious diversity and truth; Part 2 draws out the epistemic import of religious diversity; and Part 3 concludes the volume by examining the practical and social aspects of religious diversity. Bringing a transdisciplinary perspective to a topic that remains at the forefront of conversation around the religious life of the world, this book will be of great interest to scholars of Religious Studies, Theology and the Philosophy of Religion.

Abstract This paper starts with arguing that the main reason why value pluralism has become conflictual is that it challenges people’s socio-cultural identity. The next section gives a summary of recent sociological research on socio-cultural tensions and conflicts in the Netherlands and Europe. They are closely linked to “globalization issues,” such as cosmopolitism, immigration, and cultural integration. This shows that the prediction of the modernization theory, according to which substantial socio-cultural values would be replaced by a universalist, procedural ethics, has not come true. The third section discusses the philosophical reasons of the potentially conflictual character of today’s value pluralism: the fragility of socio-cultural identity, the spread of the culture of expressive individualism and the ethics of authenticity, and the influence of the (politics of) recognition of socio-cultural differences. The fourth section discusses two philosophical responses to the conflictual character of value pluralism. First, there is Taylor’s plea for a broadening of our socio-cultural horizon and a transformation of our common standards of (value-)judgments, based on his idea of a fusion of cultural horizons. In spite of its obvious merits, Taylor underestimates the degree of cultural distance that characterizes many instances of value pluralism. Second, there is an idea of cultural hospitality, which is an application of Ricoeur’s idea of linguistic hospitality to the cultural sphere. It is more modest than Taylor’s proposal, since it recognizes the unbridgeable gap that separates different cultures and their values. Another even more modest suggestion to diminish the conflictual character of value pluralism is the virtue of tolerance, which combines the idea that I have good reasons for my value attachments with the recognition that my values are not the completion of the ideal of human existence.

This paper examines the inescapable boundaries of intercultural dialogue in a context of (radical) religious and societal heterogeneity, in which there is no common language. The paper discusses two models of understanding the cultural other: first, Gadamer's idea of a fusion of horizons, and second, Ricoeur's idea of cultural hospitality. Through a critical analysis of Taylor's ideas of understanding the other in her own right, it is shown that the paradigm of a fusion of horizons is only effective for intercultural dialogue as long as the differences between various cultures are not too big. However, this paradigm reaches its boundaries in a context of cultural heterogeneity, because there is no "Esperanto", i.e. a common language, in which all the ideas, practices and sensitivities of all cultures could be translated without loss. Therefore, Ricoeur's idea to approach the opportunities and boundaries of understanding the cultural other by comparing it with learning a different language is a major step forward, since he stresses the value of cultural hospitality, while at the same time doing justice to the idea that there will always be something untranslatable, The conclusion will be that, although intercultural dialogue confronts humans with inescapable boundaries, communication with and understanding of the cultural other are nevertheless essential, since humans can only understand themselves through the other.