2001年9月11日――現代の批判的知性を代表するふたりの哲学者は，この日の出来事にどう向きあったのか。衝撃の余韻が残るニューヨークで行われた二つの対話は，〈啓蒙〉の遺産に対する厳粛な省察を通して，現在進行形の〈テロへの戦い〉が私たちにもたらした9．11以後のグローバルな課題に介入する。
二〇〇一年九月一一日――現代の批判的知性を代表するふたりの哲学者は、この日の出来事にどう向きあったのか。衝撃の余韻が残るニューヨークで行われた、ハーバーマスとデリダによる二つの対話は、“啓蒙”の遺産に対する厳粛な省察を通して、現在進行形の“テロへの戦い”が私たちにもたらした問題と、九・一一以後のグローバルな課題に介入する。本書は、ふたりが同じ問題にパラレルな仕方で応答し、相並んで登場することに同意した初めての機会である。
2001年9月11日。現代の批判的知性を代表する二人の哲学者はこの日の出来事にどう向きあったのか。二つの対話が、現在進行形の「テロへの戦い」がもたらした問題と、9.11以後のグローバルな課題に介入する。
The idea for Philosophy in a Time of Terror was born hours after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and came to realization just weeks later when Giovanna Borradori sat down with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, in separate interviews, in New York City. Habermas and Derrida evaluated the significance of the most destructive terrorist attack ever perpetrated. The resulting book is an unprecedented encounter between two of the most influential thinkers of our age: here for the first time Habermas and Derrida overcome their antagonism and agree to appear side by side in this book.
In her introduction, Borradori contends that philosophy has an invaluable contribution to make to the understanding of terrorism. Just as the traumas produced by colonialism, totalitarianism, and the Holocaust wrote the history of the twentieth century, the history of the twenty-first century is already signed by global terrorism. Each dialogue, accompanied by a critical essay, recognizes the magnitude of this upcoming challenge. Characteristically, Habermas's dialogue is dense, compact, and elegantly traditional. Derrida's, on the other hand, takes the reader on a long, winding, and unpredictable road. Yet unexpected agreements emerge between them: both have a deep suspicion of the concept of "terrorism" and see the need for a transition from classical international law, premised on the model of nation-states, to a new cosmopolitan order based on continental alliances.
As Derrida and Habermas disassemble and reassemble what we think we know about terrorism, they break from the familiar social and political rhetoric increasingly polarized between good and evil. In this process, we watch two of the greatest philosophical minds at work.