Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (2)
- Article (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4) (remove)
Keywords
- Globalisierung (4) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (4) (remove)
Surrounding globalism , due to digital connections, is felt in all the fields of our life. Globalism causes changes in local conditions. However, there are also local realities and peope live with local conditions. As a result of this, according to R. Robertsson emerge “globalocalisation”. How is a language influenced from this “globalocalisation” process? This study trys to research with samples the changes in language as a consequence of globalocal interactions.
The idea of a global world is not a new idea as some may think. The idea was already on the agenda of many philosophers in the countries where German was native language. Leibniz’s, a universal philosopher, dream for an easy and common European Language dates back to the 16th century. His thoughts gains significance for the present idea of Globalizm, for a common language for all nations seems to be an essential prerequisite for a global world. Rotterdam, being a reformist and humanist philosopher, is also known to have used concepts and terms such as “Global Citizenship” and “World Citizen” . Similar expressions can also be found in Kant’s “World Citizenship Theory” in the 18th Century. Likewise, Marks and Engels are known to have used the concepts in the same way Kant and Rotterdam had formerly used them.
This paper aims at establishing a connection between the ideas of the 16th, 17th and 18th century philosophers and today’s projects to form a Global World in view of the significance and necessity of a common language in achieving that end.
Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg lecture has been exposed by some learned voices of 'the Muslim world' as alluding, by the means of one particular quotation, to age-old stereotypes about Islam being an essentially violent creed in which moderation through reason has no legitimate place, and of representing Muhammadas an evil and inhuman man who preached that Islam should be spread by the sword. While none of these presumably 'Muslim' voices deny that the Pope has the right to express his opinions, even when they are plainly wrong in the face of historic facts that show how Islam and Christianity were spread (or were made to spread) across the world, he is criticised for a host of omissions in terms of intellectual honesty and factual accuracy. These omissions, it is argued here, cast an unfortunate light on the compatibility of scientific and religious rationality much advocated by the Pope in his 12 September 2006 lecture. This flagrant 'performative contradiction' (Habermas) leaves room for speculation about the true aim of the speech. Is Benedict XVI's appeal to theology as a legitimate academic discipline a credible attempt to explicate Roman Catholicism's rightful place in a modern world governed by liberal democracy and ethical-political pluralism, or is it a reflection of a move to restore the age-old, intolerant, anti-scientific, and anti-democratic legacy of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church?