چکیده:
Chantal Mouffe and Jürgen Habermas's thoughts, despite their very serious differences, are one of the most important sources of thought in the field of facing the other. This article tries to retrieve the ideas of these two thinkers about facing the other due to their weaknesses and shortcomings, and by their theoretical reconstruction, a more complete typology offers a variety of facing the other. Another purpose of this article is to show the strengths and weaknesses of each of these types to show which of them can be more justified and rational. Accordingly, the main question of the present article is what types of confrontation can there be with the other? And which type of confrontation is more rationally justified? The main hypothesis is that the types of encounters with the other can be summarized into 5 types: becoming another, another taboo, antagonism, agonism, and another reflective understanding. Another reflective understanding seems to be more rationally justified. The method of research will be a descriptive and critical analysis.
خلاصه ماشینی:
" In deliberative democracy, Habermas emphasizes "communicative action" with the Other to reach consensus and understanding, whereas Mouffe's agonistic democracy model is based on the existence of a "conflictual but irreconcilable relationship" with the Other within the sphere of the political.
In this article - as is evident from its title - a comparison between Mouffe and Habermas has been made from the perspective of the political, showing that the political from Habermas's perspective is based on liberal ontological roots that view humans as evolving and moral beings possessing communicative competence, who can reach consensus and understanding through reason and rational arguments; whereas the political from Mouffe's perspective is based on Marxist ontology, where the principle of power and contradiction forms the foundation of the political.
Mouffe argues that the implications and consequences of this type of encounter are as follows: a) The danger of moralizing politics: In Chantal Mouffe's view, if the principle of conflict is not accepted, then the goal will be to resolve the points of disagreement between the parties by any means possible.
Given the scale and complexities of the modern world, the desire for consensus as described by Habermas and his counterparts is only suitable in personal and romantic relationships between individuals, or at least in Greek city-states or small and limited assemblies where long-lasting and persuasive debates are possible among them, and where they simultaneously possess the political education and knowledge to think about the common good and public issues and to persuade and be persuaded through reasoning.
(
, 
, 
)
