Sociedade pós-secular: o papel da religião segundo Jürgen Habermas

• Ano de defesa: 2020
• Autor(a) principal: Reiter, Ricardo Luis
• Orientador(a): Pich, Roberto Hofmeister
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; Porto Alegre
• Palavras-chave em Português: FILOSOFIA ALEMÃ; RELIGIÃO E ESTADO; RELIGIÃO - ASPECTOS SOCIAIS; RELIGIÃO - ASPECTOS FILOSÓFICOS; ESTADO (POLÍTICA)
• Link de acesso: https://hdl.handle.net/10923/16829

The present work proposes to investigate the proposal of translatability of religious contents as a response to the conflicts that arise in the public sphere between religious and secular groups, from the current configuration of a post-secular society. This term appears in the Habermasian writings from the years 2000 onwards. For this analysis, a reconstruction of the relationship between religion and the public sphere (Öffentlichkeit) - a term developed by Kant and taken up by Habermas - will be made, as it appears in the author's first writings (1962), in order to - next - briefly present the criticisms that the concept "public sphere" has received, mainly from Geoff Eley. After the rescue and theoretical reconstruction of the concept of the public sphere, the differentiation between "secular society" and "post secular" is started, as presented by Habermas in contrast to authors like Taylor. Since the object of this research is to understand how Habermas proposes to solve the conflict of world images of religious and secular groups - which are several times irreconcilable but exist in the same society - it is necessary to address what Habermas understands by tolerance - in relation to Forst - and recognition - in counterpart to Taylor. The last chapter deals specifically with the proposal of translating religious content into secular language, as well as its functioning and the problems it presents. Finally, the habermasian proposal ends up facing the distribution of the burdens of the commitment of translatability. Religious groups will need to make a greater effort to have their contributions accepted in the public sphere. Habermas also does not take into consideration social conditions that seem to be necessary for the proposal of translatability to be effective, such as, for example, the education of the people, the habit of discussing rationally and justifying their positions, and a minimally functional state of tolerance. Thus, it is open whether the habermasian proposal is specific to the context of the author, Germany, or if he intends to present a proposal that can be adopted by all societies.