哈貝馬斯與莊子的共同陣線?

Translated title of the contribution: A Common Front between Habermas and Zhuangzi?

王沁*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Abstract

Chai attempts to demonstrate how Zhuangzi can be used to supplement Habermas’s arguments against liberal eugenics. He argues that both Habermas and Zhuangzi would view liberal eugenics as falling on the wrong side of the natural/artificial divide. It is debatable whether his interpretation of Zhuangzi as both fatalist and epistemically modest suits this conclusion. In particular, it is doubtful that someone who is suspicious of whether humans can ever have knowledge of nature would be entitled to assert that liberal eugenics is unnatural. Even if this position is possible, it would be one that equally rejects Habermas. Habermas attempts to isolate genetic engineering from acceptable interventions in a person’s life. Daoism, to the extent that it rejects liberal eugenics, would equally view the latter kinds of interventions as misguided. Chai’s Daoist ethics of human enhancement, therefore, could hardly be used to supplement Habermas’s position.
Translated title of the contributionA Common Front between Habermas and Zhuangzi?
Original languageChinese (Traditional)
Pages (from-to)113-117
Number of pages5
Journal中外醫學哲學
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Common Front between Habermas and Zhuangzi?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this