The relationship between history and justice traditionally has been dominated by the idea of the past as distant or absent. This ambiguous ontological status makes it very difficult to situate the often-felt "duty to remember" or obligation to "do justice to the past" in the present. The introduction of the "presence"paradigm in hi storiography can potentially alter this relation. But it should be conceived in such a way that it offers a fundamental critique of the metaphysical dichoto
The relationship between history and justice traditionally has been dominated by the idea of the past as distant or absent. This ambiguous ontological status makes it very difficult to situate the often-felt "duty to remember" or obligation to "do justice to the past" in the present. The introduction of the "presence"paradigm in hi storiography can potentially alter this relation. But it should be conceived in such a way that it offers a fundamental critique of the metaphysical dichoto
The relationship between history and justice traditionally has been dominated by the idea of the past as distant or absent. This ambiguous ontological status makes it very difficult to situate the often-felt "duty to remember" or obligation to "do justice to the past" in the present. The introduction of the "presence"paradigm in hi storiography can potentially alter this relation. But it should be conceived in such a way that it offers a fundamental critique of the metaphysical dichoto
The relationship between history and justice traditionally has been dominated by the idea of the past as distant or absent. This ambiguous ontological status makes it very difficult to situate the often-felt "duty to remember" or obligation to "do justice to the past" in the present. The introduction of the "presence"paradigm in hi storiography can potentially alter this relation. But it should be conceived in such a way that it offers a fundamental critique of the metaphysical dichoto