Martin Ebeling

This article presents two interlocking arguments for epistemic political egalitarianism. I argue, first, that coping with multidimensional social complexity requires the integration of expertise. This is the task of political parties as collective epistemic agents who transform abstract value judgments into sufficiently coherent and specific conceptions of justice for their society. Because parties thus severely lower the relevant threshold of comparison of political competence, citizens have reason to regard each other as epistemic equals. Drawing on the virulent “peer disagreement debate,” I then analyze the epistemic significance of political disagreement. I contend that citizens ought to pursue epistemic conciliation, an idea I contrast to the ideals of compromise and of consensus. Subsequently, I introduce insights from public choice theory and empirical findings which show that and why multi-party electoral competition coupled with equal rights to participation tends to produce conciliatory outcomes. We thus have reason to endorse political egalitarianism on epistemic grounds.

Advocates of epistemic conceptions of democracy sometimes argue that democratic decision-making is a more reliable guide to getting the issues at stake right than the decision-making of individuals. Such arguments give rise to the question of whether those finding themselves in the minority should defer to democratic outcomes. In this article, I discuss the bearing of the normative criterion of reasonable acceptability on this question. I thus ask, can the demand to defer to democratic outcomes be rendered reasonably acceptable to citizens who disagree with them? Using the example of David Estlund’s epistemic proceduralism, I show that the problem of moral deference is inherent to epistemic conceptions of democracy. I then discuss the kind of reasons that would make a demand of deference reasonably acceptable to the minority, arguing that they should be independent from the reasons supporting the majority position. Subsequently, I introduce the conciliatory conception of democracy as an example of what such reasons could be. The conception’s central idea is that disagreement between citizens conceived as equal epistemic authorities carries epistemic significance. This significance makes it rational for citizens so conceived to conciliate their conflicting judgments. Because democratic decision-making has an inbuilt tendency to track such conciliatory positions, the conception offers an independent reason to accept democratic outcomes as the more reliable guide to getting the issues at stake right.

Seit der Antike wird der Musik eine große emotionale Wirkung zugeschrieben. Bis heute sind unterschiedliche Erklärungsmodelle diskutiert worden. Das betrifft zunächst das Phänomen der Gefühle im Allgemeinen, aber auch die Frage nach der Ursache der ästhetischen Empfindungen im Besonderen. Die Gefühlslehre von Carl Stumpf versucht u. a. in seiner Auseinandersetzung mit William James (James-Lange-Theorie, die vornehmlich auf die somatische Genese der Emotionen insistiert) Erklärungsansätze zu entwickeln, die sowohl kognitive als auch emotional-wertende psychische Funktionen berücksichtigen. Dennoch ist in Bezug auf das nur scheinbar triviale Verhältnis von Hören und Fühlen, Musik und Emotionalität unter stringent wissenschaftlichen Kriterien erst ein Anfang gemacht worden, weil die Thematik - wie der Band zeigt - von einer bislang unterschätzten Komplexität zeugt, die zukünftig wohl nur mit vereinten interdisziplinären Kräften einem besseren Verständnis näherzubringen sein wird.

In this book, Martin Ebeling discusses how we ought to react to our persistent political disagreement with other citizens. He presents this disagreement as not only a moral problem, but also as an epistemically unsettling phenomenon, as we often have reason to judge our opposition to be as competent as ourselves in judging the political issues at stake. Conciliatory Democracy reflects on the political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and claims that advocates of deliberative democracy, which treats political disagreement mainly as a moral problem, should expand their approach. The author promotes Rousseau's appreciation of disagreement in contemporary political philosophy as a way to encourage conciliation within democracy. Ebeling furthermore draws on public choice theory and empirical research to reintroduce political parties as vital players in the institutional landscape of democracy.

In this article, I discuss the epistemological aspects of ‘radical disagreement’ with reference to Chantal Mouffe’s theory of democracy and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s late philosophy. Mouffe builds on the latter to provide the necessary epistemological foundation to her critique of ‘rationalistic’ political philosophy and to continue this critique on the epistemological register. I argue, however, that her reading of Wittgenstein misses aspects vital to his ‘deep contextualism’. If we remain faithful to his project, the existence of a plurality of forms of life does not necessitate a rejection of the paradigm of justification as it is embedded in ‘rationalistic’ currents of contemporary political philosophy. Using the example of John Rawls’s brand of political liberalism, I show furthermore that we can reconcile it with Mouffe’s project of radical democracy if we interpret their differences as the expression of a division of labor in the analysis of different types of political disagreement. This newly won possibility of reconciling these important currents of contemporary philosophy, however, raises the question, which I will discuss towards the end of the article, how to determine the boundaries of democratic forms of life.