Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:54:52.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Charles Taylor (Still) a Weak Ontologist?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

MICHIEL MEIJER
MICHIEL MEIJER*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I critically discuss Charles Taylor’s employment of the concept of ontology by shining a spotlight on a shift in emphasis from an anthropocentric to a non-anthropocentric viewpoint in his more recent writings on ontology. I also argue that Stephen White’s characterization of Taylor’s ‘weak’ ontology, while revealing, only partly explains Taylor’s position, as White’s interpretation leaves no room for the metaphysical thrust in Taylor’s thought. Drawing attention to a Taylor left out of White’s Taylor, I ultimately seek to show why Taylor’s distinctive mode of argumentation is not consonant with White’s weak-ontological approach.

Dans cet article, j’aborde la question de la notion d’ontologie chez Charles Taylor. Je constate, dans un premier temps, l’abandon par Taylor du point de vue anthropocentrique, ainsi que l’adoption d’une perspective non-anthropocentrique. Je remets ensuite en question l’interprétation de Stephen White, en insistant sur le fait qu’elle ne parvient pas à mettre en valeur l’inspiration métaphysique de la pensée de Taylor. J’estime, en conclusion, que Taylor s’appuie fondamentalement sur un mode d’argumentation métaphysique qui est sous-estimé lorsqu’on le présente comme un «ontologiste “faible”».

Keywords

Charles Taylorontologyphilosophical anthropologymetaphysicsStephen White
Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 65 - 87
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbey, Ruth 2000 Charles Taylor. Teddington/Princeton: Acumen Press/Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert, and Taylor, Charles 2015 Retrieving Realism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Paul 1999 The Contradictions of Modern Moral Philosophy. Ethics after Wittgenstein. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kerr, Fergus 2004 “The Self and the Good. Taylor’s Moral Ontology.” In Contemporary Philosophy in Focus: Charles Taylor, edited by Abbey, Ruth, 84–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kymlicka, Will 1991 “The Ethics of Inarticulacy,” Inquiry 34 (2): 155–182.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Arto 2008 Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Mark 2002 Charles Taylor: Thinking and Living Deep Diversity. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rosa, Hartmut, and Laitinen, Arto 2002 “On Identity, Alienation and the Consequences of September 11th. An Interview with Charles Taylor.” In Acta Philosophica Fennica. Vol. 71. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Charles Taylor, edited by Laitinen, Arto and Smith, Nicholas, 165–195. Helsinki: Philosophical Society of Finland.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael 1982 Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saurette, Paul 2005 The Kantian Imperative: Humiliation, Common Sense, Politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas 2002 Charles Taylor: Meaning, Morals and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1985 Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1985 Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1988 “The Moral Topography of the Self.” In Hermeneutics and Psychological Theory, edited by Messer, Stanly et al., 298–320. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1989 Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1995 “Cross-Purposes: The Liberal-Communitarian Debate.” In Philosophical Arguments, 181–203. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 1995 “A Most Peculiar Institution.” In World, Mind, and Ethics. Essays on the Ethical Philosophy of Bernard Williams, edited by Altham, J.E.J. and Harrison, Ross, 132–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 2003 “Ethics and Ontology.” The Journal of Philosophy 100 (6): 305–320.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 2005 “The ‘Weak Ontology’ Thesis.” The Hedgehog Review 7 (2): 35–42.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 2007 A Secular Age. Cambridge/London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles 2011 “Disenchantment-Reenchantment.” In Dilemmas and Connections, 287–302. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
White, Stephen 1997 “Weak Ontology and Liberal Political Reflection.” Political Theory 25 (4): 502–523.Google Scholar
White, Stephen 2000 Sustaining Affirmation: The Strengths of Weak Ontology in Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
White, Stephen 2005 “Weak Ontology: Genealogy and Critical Issues.” The Hedgehog Review 7 (2): 11–25.Google Scholar