Advertisement

Contemporaneity and Dialogue

  • Roida Rzayeva OktayEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

In an articulation of the modern philosophical problematic, dialogue acts as the important factor in generating the subject-subject communications. Modern realities require an expanded understanding of the dialogue caused by the new contextualisation and globalisation . Tolerance and patience in relation to another person become urgent in the context of a changed culture. The tolerance system is grounded on the principle of equality. “Another person” or the “Other ” is a natural and organic medium for tolerance; it is possible to recognise the others on the basis of agreement, understanding, and cooperation. The tolerant mentality is the acceptation of an existence of differences as a general being though dialogue as an admittance of one’s self with their contradiction. Such a statement of the problem causes a socio-philosophical understanding of two categories. Gender culture is an inalienable part of a dialogue culture. On a modern stage of the development of society, in conditions of its complicated social transformation, gender relations, as a specific kind of relations in society, require new approaches. Through a search of the semantic bases for dialogue, the philosophy of dialogue goes beyond the limits of negation or search for the general bases and is aimed at understanding through variety.

Keywords

Contemporaneity Postmodern Philosophy Dialogue Tolerance Other Philosophy of dialogue Dialogue culture Gender culture 

References

  1. Anderson, P. S. (1988). A feminist philosophy of religion: The rationality and Myths of religious belief. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. S. (2006). Postmodernizm ve Din. In S. Sim (Ed.), Postmodern Düşüncenin Eleştirel Sözlüğü (Çev. M. Erkan & A. Utku), 1. bs.: 59–66. Ankara: ebabil Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  3. Azimov, A. B. (n.d.) Genderniye aspekti filosofii. http://education.gender-az.org/Files/4.3rus.pdf.
  4. Berdyayev, N. A. (1989). Eros i lichnost. Prometey: Filosofiya pola i lyubvi. M.Google Scholar
  5. Kahraman, H. B. (2007). Postmodernite ile Modernite Arasında Türkiye 1980 Sonrası Zihinsel, Toplumsal, Siyasal Dönüşüm. İstanbul: Agora Kitaplığı.Google Scholar
  6. Кemerov, V. (2001). Politsubyektnaya sotsialnost i problema tolerantnosti. In Tolerantnost i politsubyektnaya sotsialnost, 16–17, Yeкaterinburg.Google Scholar
  7. Kerimov, T. Kh. (2001). Problemi tolerantnosti i sotsialnaya geterologiya. In Tolerantnost i politsubyektnaya sotsialnost, 24–27, Yeкaterinburg.Google Scholar
  8. Kuramshev, A. V. (2001). Genderniye roli i tolerantnost. In Molodej XXI veka: tolerantnost kak sposob mirovospriyatiya, Pod. red. Z. Kh. Saraliyevoy, 24–27, N.Novgorod: Izdatelstvo NISOTS.Google Scholar
  9. Ladikina, T. A. (2001). Gendernaya samoidentifikatsiya lichnost i tolerantnost. In Tolerantnost. Materiali Letney shkoli molodikh uchenikh “Rossiya – Zapad: filosofskiye osnovaniya sosiokulturnoy tolerantnosti”, 57–82. Yekaterinburg.Google Scholar
  10. Grant, I. H. (2006). Postmodernizm ve Politika. In S. Sim (Ed.), Postmodern Düşüncenin Eleştirel Sözlüğü (Trans. M. Erkan & A. Utku), 1. bs., 17–30. Ankara: ebabil Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  11. Gülerce, A. (2005). Postmodernist Düşünen Siyaset Açısından Türkiye Toplumunun Özneleşmesi. Düşünen Siyaset Düşünce Dergisi, Sayı 21, Aralık 2005: 11–29. Ankara: Lotus Yayınları.Google Scholar
  12. Lektorskiy, V. A. (1997). O tolerantnosti, pluralizme i krititsizme. In Voprosi filosofii, 11, 49–50.Google Scholar
  13. Lozgacheva, Y. (2006). Diskussiya o znachenii ponyatiya “postmodern”. http://www.zaharov.znautvse.com/study/seminar_43c.htm
  14. Loginov, A. V. (2001). Tolerantnost, politsubyektnost i sotsialnaya metafizika: postanovka problemi. In Tolerantnost i politsubyektnaya sotsialnost, 64–67. Yekaterinburg.Google Scholar
  15. Mirskaya, Y. Z., & Martinova, Y. A. (1993). Jenshini v nauke. Vestnik RAN. Avgust 1993 g., t. 63, No. 8.Google Scholar
  16. Munye, E. (1999). Personalistskaya i obshnostnaya revolutsiya. In Manifest personalizma, 70–72. Mocквa.Google Scholar
  17. Proskurina (Yavorovich), M. M. (2002). Feminizatsiya nauki kak sotsilogicheskaya problema, 72–77. http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/152/470/1217/009.PROSKOURINA.pdf.
  18. Rzayeva, R. O. (2014). ‘Alternative’ modernisms in the discourse on postmodern. In G. Raţă, H. Arslan, P.-L. Runcan, & A. Akdemir (Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on social sciences (pp. 293–301). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Sarıbay, A.Y. (2001). Postmodernite, Sivil Toplum ve İslam. 3. Baskı. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.Google Scholar
  20. Thornham, S. (2006). “Postmodernizm ve Feminizm.” In S. Sim, Postmodern Düşüncenin Eleştirel Sözlüğü (Çev. M. Erkan & A. Utku), 31–43, 1. bs. Ankara: ebabil Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  21. Uğur, A. (1992). Postmodernizmin Siyasetle İlişkisi Üzerine, Defter, 18, Ocak–Haziran.Google Scholar
  22. Vakhrushina, M. O. (2011). Samoaktualizatsiya sovremennoy jenshini v semye kak psikhologicheskaya problema. Molodoy ucheniy. No. 4, T.2, 57–59. http://www.moluch.ru/archive/27/2992.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Azerbaijan National Academy of SciencesBakuAzerbaijan

Personalised recommendations