According to Jürgen Habermas, his Theory of Communicative Action offers a new account of the normative foundations of critical theory. Habermas’ motivating insight is that neither a transcendental nor a metaphysical solution to the problem of normativity, nor a merely hermeneutic reconstruction of historically given norms, is sufficient to clarify the normative foundations of critical theory. In response to this insight, Habermas develops a novel account of normativity, which locates the normative demands of critical theory within the (...) socially instituted practice of communicative understanding. Although Habermas has claimed otherwise, this new foundation for critical theory constitutes a novel and innovative form of “immanent critique.” To argue for and to clarify this claim, I offer, in section 1, a formal account of immanent critique and distinguish between two different ways of carrying out such a critique. (shrink)

The so-called debate between Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls concentrated mainly on the latter’s political liberalism. It dealt with the many aspects of Rawls’s philosophical project. In this article, I focus only on one of them, namely the epistemic or cognitivistic nature of principles of justice. The first part provides an overview of the debate, while the second part aims to show that Habermas has not misinterpreted Rawls’s position. I argue that Habermas rightly considers Rawls’s conception of (...) justice as a moral one. In the last part, I discuss two key questions raised by Habermas. The first concerns the relation between justification and acceptance of the principles of justice. The second concerns the relation between two validity terms: truth and reasonableness. (shrink)

The evolution of Habermas follows that of Rawls in Political Liberalism, where the principles of justice are traced back to a historical background and no longer derived from an original position as in A Theory of Justice; and even Rawls, curiously enough, while he made his own the criticism in a broad sense Hegelian, of opponents such as Walzer,continued not to recognize the debt he now owed them. Appropriations of the opponents' objections, withdrawals disguised as victories, ad hoc distinctions (...) and so on, are common staple in disputes between thinkers, phenomena that it would be too easy to dismiss with accusations of tendentiousness or lack of rigour. -/- . (shrink)

El propósito principal de este libro es mostrar hasta qué punto el pensamiento teórico de Habermas está animado por un fuerte aliento práctico, más concretamente práctico-político, con el que concretaría el muy ilustrado propósito de hacer uso público de la razón. De hecho, la intencionalidad práctica de su pensamiento es tan destacada que el conjunto de su obra se entiende mucho mejor si se la concibe, tal como él mismo insiste, como un intento de guiar con una finalidad emancipatoria (...) el camino de la praxis, o, si se prefiere, de orientar racionalmente la acción política en las sociedades contemporáneas. (shrink)

In this paper I examine Habermas’ conception of the market in The Theory of Communicative Action (TCA). Habermas’ characterization of the market as norm-free has been controversial and I discuss three objections to it: the claims that it (1) conflates of action types, types of action coordination and spheres of action, (2) cannot account for the normative structure of the social organization of labour, and (3) that it makes impossible to make moral judgments about behaviour in the market. (...) I conclude that while some of these objections are unfounded, we have reason to revise Habermas’ substantive claims about the market. I also stress the importance of distinguishing between the TCA’s methodology and its time-diagnostic thrust. Next, I assess the colonization thesis through a case study of the commodification of higher education. I conclude that this thesis remains plausible, but that it needs to be supplemented with a theory of ideology. (shrink)

Myths – symbolically dense narratives in wide cultural circulation that resist critical scrutiny – are often thought to be counterproductive to political discourse, but they are also ubiquitous in contemporary culture and society. Just two years apart, Jürgen Habermas and Hans Blumenberg developed contrasting visions of how we ought to respond to the myths in our society. By reconstructing their disagreement, this paper uncovers the distinctive challenge of balancing a commitment to political emancipation with the distinctive opacity of myths (...) to critical reason. I argue for an alternative approach to myths than those in the theoretical mainstream, taking Blumenberg’s relatively neglected position as a starting point. Blumenberg invites us to pay closer attention to the cognitive needs that necessitate the generation of myths, while simultaneously reminding us of our own creative agency to reinvent them. (shrink)

The paper discusses Habermas` contribution to a debate between him and Joseph Ratzinger, at the time the prefect of the Congregation for the Catholic faith. Habermas is criticized for his tendency to adopt openly anti-enlightenment positions.

In texts such as “Richard Rorty’s Pragmatic Turn” Jürgen Habermas defends a theory that associates, on the one hand, the truth-claim raised by a speaker for a proposition p with, on the other hand, the requirement that p be “defendable on the basis of good reasons […] at any time and against anybody”. This, as is known, has been the target of criticisms by Rorty, who−in spite of agreeing with Habermas on the central tenet that the way of (...) evaluating our beliefs must be argumentative practice−declares that the only “ideal presupposed by discourse” is “that of being able to justify your beliefs to a competent audience”. We will consider two texts from 1971, -surprisingly neglected in most approaches to the debate-, in which Habermas did include such a “competence condition” to elucidate the notion of truth. We will discuss whether there are good reasons to relinquish such a condition and to refer, instead, only to the formal or procedural properties of argumentative exchanges, as Habermas does in presenting the notion of “ideal speech situation”. As we will try to argue, there are no such good reasons. (shrink)

Habermas emphasizes the importance for critical thinking of ideas of truth and moral validity that are at once context-transcending and immanent to human practices. in a recent review, Peter Dews queries his distinction between metaphysically construed transcendence and transcendence from within, asking provocatively in what sense Habermas does not believe in God. I answer that his conception of “God” is resolutely postmetaphysical, a god that is constructed by way of human linguistic practices. I then give three reasons for (...) why it should not be embraced by contemporary critical social theory. First, in the domain of practical reason, this conception of transcendence excludes by fiat any “Other” to communicative reason, blocking possibilities for mutual learning. Second, due to the same exclusion, it risks reproducing an undesirable social order. Third, it is inadequate for the purposes of a critical theory of social institutions. (shrink)

In his book, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, and especially in the “Excursus on Leveling the Genre Distinction between Philosophy and Literature” (pp. 185-210), Jürgen Habermas criticizes the work of Jacques Derrida. My aim in this paper is to show that this critique turns upon itself. Habermas accuses Derrida of effacing the distinctions between literature and philosophy. Derrida indeed works to subvert the distinction between fictional and argumentative writing, but in doing so he works with the genres he (...) is mixing. It is Habermas’ own insistence on subordinating all genres to argumentative rationality that truly effaces these genre distinctions. (shrink)

Luca Corchia, Jürgen Habermas. A bibliography: works and studies (1952-2013). With an Introduction by Stefan Müller-Doohm, Pisa, Arnus University Books, 2013, pp. 606.

Abstract According to Habermas' colonization thesis, reification is a social pathology that arises when the communicative infrastructure of the lifeworld is 'colonized' by money and power. In this paper I argue that, thirty years after the publication of the Theory of Communicative Action, this thesis remains compelling. However, while Habermas offers a functionalist explanation of reification, his normative criticism of it remains largely implicit: he never explains what is wrong with reification from the perspective of the people whose (...) social relations are reified. As a result, Habermas cannot explain why only some forms of colonization lead to reification effects. In particular, he suggests that reification effects result from the juridification of communicatively structured domains of action but not from the commodification of labour power. I criticize this argument and suggest that if the normative dimension of the colonization thesis is made explicit, a more nuanced explanation of reification becomes possible. (shrink)

Jürgen Habermas ha dedicato più di trent’anni dei suoi studi alle scienze sociali al fine di definire, attraverso la ricostruzione delle tradizioni di pensiero in esse presenti, un quadro teorico di riferimento che orienti i programmi della ricerca storico-sociale. Al pari dei grandi classici del pensiero sociologico, egli ha cercato di affrontare i “problemi della società nel suo insieme” esplicitando gli assunti, i metodi e gli obiettivi della teoria sociale come presupposto indispensabile per un’indagine che ampli i confini disciplinari (...) della sociologia, da un lato, alla riflessione filosofica, dall’altro alla ricerca storiografica. Nel lungo itinerario della sua formazione scientifica questo programma rappresenta il filo conduttore nell’analisi dei “sistemi culturali”, dei “sistemi sociali”, dei “sistemi della personalità” e, soprattutto, nella “teoria dell’evoluzione sociale”, dalla ricostruzione delle condizioni necessarie alla genesi antropologica delle forme socio-culturali di vita – l’“ominizzazione” – sino all’esame della logica e della dinamica di sviluppo delle “formazioni sociali” che egli suddivide in primitive, tradizionali, moderne e contemporanee. Nella Postfazione all’edizione italiana di Profili politico-filosofici (2000), una raccolta che contiene scritti di quarantacinque anni di studi (1953-1998), Leonardo Ceppa sottolinea i due aspetti essenziali dell’opera di Habermas: “la coerenza teorica” e il “carattere assimilatorio”. Habermas non è un pensatore “rivoluzionario” ma un “riformista” che, ricorrendo a un’immagine ingegneristica, all’isolamento del “pensiero che scava fossati” preferisce “costruire ponti” tra i campi del sapere. Questa ricerca si segnala per il tentativo di recepire criticamente le acquisizioni specialistiche delle scienze sociali e della filosofia finalizzando questa tensione apprenditiva alla costruzione di un quadro generale. Nato dai nostri colloqui seminariali, di cui mantiene la forma dialogica dei “turni di parola”, il presente volume focalizza lo sguardo sulle società contemporanee – ripercorrendone la struttura, le sfide presenti e gli scenari futuri – e sulla funzione sociale della sociologia. Ne scaturisce un’indagine di fenomeni fondamentali per comprendere le trasformazioni della modernità: la modernizzazione, il capitalismo organizzato, lo stato sociale, la democrazia politica, la diversità culturale, l’opinione pubblica nell’epoca dei media, la globalizzazione, la crisi ecologica, le disuguaglianze mondiali, i conflitti nazionalistici, il terrorismo islamico, la secolarizzazione, l’ingegneria genetica, l’integrazione europea e la politica mondiale. Nel riordinare i temi sociologici da lui proposti abbiamo cercato di sistemare l’analisi delle società contemporanee a un livello che non si accomodi sul piano dei commenti troppo facili che gli intellettuali, i politici e la gente comune amano fare sull’attualità e che, mantenendo una visione d’insieme sull’opera, chiarisca il testo e i suoi punti ciechi. Il volume si propone come uno strumento di lavoro che accompagni a una lettura critica. Sullo sfondo rimane la domanda se Habermas riesca davvero a conseguire, nei suoi itinerari attraverso la “storia delle idee”, la coerenza logica e la profondità d’indagine necessarie a “sistematizzare” le ricerche delle scienze sociali. Alcune perplessità avvalorate dal confronto con i testi e con la letteratura critica ci hanno suggerito di riservare ai problemi metodologici uno studio specifico che chiarisca il concetto di “scienza ricostruttiva” e ne illustri le applicazioni nell’ambito delle teorie della riproduzione culturale, della socializzazione e dell’evoluzione delle formazioni sociali – uno studio le cui linee sono solo anticipate nell’Introduzione. Il programma di ricerca e la sua recezione critica, relativamente agli assunti della teoria dell’evoluzione sociale. Riprendendo una felice espressione di Karl Popper, ci auguriamo di aver raggiunto la chiarezza argomentativa e la semplicità linguistica dovuta al lettore, confidando nella “cooperazione amichevole-ostile di molti scienziati”. (shrink)

The Habermas–Foucault debate, despite the excellent commentary it has generated, has the standing of an ‘unfinished project’ precisely because it occasions the interrogation of the fundamental categories of modernity, and because the lingering sense of anxiety, which continues to remain after arguments and counter-arguments, demands new interpretations. Here, I advance the claim that what gives Habermas’s criticisms of Foucault’s histories and theoretical formulations their bite is the categorial distinction he maintains between facts and rights, and by extension, between (...) causes and reasons. The Kantian distinction between de jure validity and de facto effectivity underwrites the categorial distinction between both ‘norms/facts’ and ‘reasons/causes’ conceptual pairs, which distinction, in turn, is reinforced by a picture of the natural world as matter in motion and human agency as self-determination. I want to claim that Foucault’s work enacts a critique of Habermas not by evading the problem of justification but by undermining the very distinctions Habermas needs to maintain the universal and necessary status of communicative rationality. Drawing on Jonathan Lear’s discussion of reasons and causes in relation to the unconscious, I claim that psychoanalytic discourse helps us make intelligible a type of reflection—such as one finds in Foucault’s historiography—that is at once “critical and empirical.” Moreover, the realization that the distinction between causes and reasons may not be categorial and exhaustive shows how Habermas’s insistence on the contrary leads to one particular kind of misrecognition of our practices. (shrink)

In this article I place Jurgen Habermas' recent turn to a "post-secular society" in the context of his previous defence of a "postmetaphysical" view of modernity. My argument is that the concept of "postsecular" introduces significant normative tensions for the formal and pragmatic view of reason defended by Habermas in previous work. In particular, the turn to a "post-secular society" threatens the evolutionary narrative that Habermas espoused in The Theory of Communicative Action, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (...) or Postmetaphysical Thinking, according to which modern "communicative" reason dialecticlly supersedes religion. If this narrative is undermined, I argue, the claim to universality of "communicative" reason is also undermined. Thus, the benefits Habermas seeks to obtain from translation of religion are offset by a destabilization of tenets central to a "postmetaphysical" view of modernity. (shrink)

Habermas’s postmetaphysical reading of Kierkegaard is paradigmatic for his understanding of religion. It shows, why Habermas reduces religion to fideism. Therefore the paper reconstructs Habermas’s reception of Kierkegaard and compares it with the accounts of Dieter Henrich and Michael Theunissen. Furthermore it demonstrates how Habermas makes use of Kierkegaard’s dialectics of existence to formulate his postmetaphysical thesis of a cooperative venture.

Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengeksplorasi pemikiran Habermas tentang Speech Act. Hal ini dilakukan karena masih sedikit literatur yang membahas tentang hubungan teori tindakan komunikatif Habermas dan Speech Act nya. Hasil penelitian ini memperlihatkan: 1) menurut Habermas, bahasa mempunyai kekuatan untuk membuat manusia mencapai konsensus yang legitim. Karena itu analisis tentang bahasa, khususnya tentang teori pragmatik yang universal menjadi diperlukan. 2) untuk mengembangkan teori pragmatik universal, Habermas menggunakan teori Speech Act Austin dan Searle sebagai basis untuk teori (...) tindakan komunikatif. 3) Habermas melakukan rekonstruksi terhadap pemikiran Austin dan Searle, sehingga muncullah konsep Speech Act konstantif, yang mempunyai validitas klaim kebenaran; regulatif, yang mempunyai validitas klaim ketepatan; dan representatif, yang mempunyai validitas klaim kejujuran. Ketiga klaim itu harus dipenuhi secara serentak untuk mendapatkan konsensus yang legitim. (shrink)

The essay describes some crucial moments in the intellectual biography of Ralf Dahrendorf and Jürgen Habermas, focusing on their frequent relationships in the first forty years. This research shows that, beyond the many divergences, what linked them in an enduring sodality was a radically democratic orientation that was consolidated in some epochal caesuras of German history: the advent of the Third Reich, the Second World War and the Anglo-American liberal “re-education”, the “normalization” of the Adenauer era, the crisis of (...) democracy and the protest of the “Sixty-eight”. (shrink)

In The Future of Human Nature, Jürgen Habermas raises the question of whether the embryonic genetic diagnosis and genetic modification threatens the foundations of the species ethics that underlies current understandings of morality. While morality, in the normative sense, is based on moral interactions enabling communicative action, justification, and reciprocal respect, the reification involved in the new technologies may preclude individuals to uphold a sense of the undisposability of human life and the inviolability of human beings that is necessary (...) for their own identity as well as for reciprocal relations. Engaging with liberal bioethics and Catholic approaches to bioethics, the article clarifies how Habermas’ position offers a radical critique of liberal autonomy while maintaining its postmetaphysical stance. The essay argues that Habermas’ approach may guide the question of rights of future generations regarding germline gene editing. But it calls for a different turn in the conversation between philosophy and theology, namely one that emphasizes the necessary attention to rights violations and injustices as a common, postmetaphysical starting point for critical theory and critical theology alike. In 2001, Jürgen Habermas published a short book on questions of biomedicine that took many by surprise.[1] To some of his students, the turn to a substantive position invoking the need to comment on a species ethics rather than outlining a public moral framework was seen as the departure from the “path of deontological virtue,”[2] and at the same time a departure from postmetaphysical reason. Habermas’ motivation to address the developments in biomedicine had certainly been sparked by the intense debate in Germany, the European Union, and internationally on human cloning, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, embryonic stem cell research, and human enhancement. He turned to a strand of critical theory that had been pushed to the background by the younger Frankfurt School in favor of cultural theory and social critique, even though it had been an important element of its initial working programs. The relationship of instrumental reason and critical theory, examined, among others, by Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse and taken up in Habermas’ own Knowledge and Interest and Theory of Communicative Action became ever-more actual with the development of the life sciences, human genome analysis, and genetic engineering of human offspring. Today, some of the fictional scenarios discussed at the end of the last century as “science fiction” have become reality: in 2018, the first “germline gene-edited” children were born in China.[3] Furthermore, the UK’s permission to create so-called “three-parent” children may create a legal and political pathway to hereditary germline interventions summarized under the name of “gene editing.”In this article, I want to explore Habermas’ “substantial” argument in the hope that philosophy and theology become allies in their struggle against an ever-more reifying lifeworld, which may create a “moral void” that would, at least from today’s perspective, be “unbearable”, and for upholding the conditions of human dignity, freedom, and justice. I will contextualize Habermas’ concerns in the broader discourse of bioethics, because only by doing this, his concerns are rescued from some misinterpretations.[1] Jürgen Habermas, The Future of Human Nature.[2] Ibid., 125, fn. 58. 8[3] Up to the present, no scientific publication of the exact procedure exists, but it is known that the scientist, Jiankui He, circumvented the existing national regulatory framework and may have misled the prospective parents about existing alternatives and the unprecedented nature of his conduct. Yuanwu Ma, Lianfeng Zhang, and Chuan Qin, "The First Genetically Gene‐Edited Babies: It's “Irresponsible and Too Early”," Animal Models and Experimental Medicine ; Matthias Braun, Meacham, Darian, "The Trust Game: Crispr for Human Germline Editing Unsettles Scientists and Society," EMBO reports 20, no. 2. (shrink)

The essay ends addressing the fracture lines dividing the European Left as far as the integration process is concerned, also among those who disapprove of the levelling of social democracy with its dominant austerity policies imposed by communitarian institutions. A “duel on the Left” – we one would have written – all the more interesting because Martinelli compares two German intellectuals, both hostile to the lasting compromise of the Große Koalition that governs the country and on which the destiny of (...) the European Union depends. Wolfgang Streeck, director of the Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung in Cologne, and Jürgen Habermas, the grand maestro of critical theory. (shrink)

Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität / Archivzentrum UBA Ffm Bestand Na 60 Beschreibung Identifikation (kurz) Laufzeit: 1950-1994 -/- Bestandsgeschichte: Jürgen Habermas (geb. 1929), Professor für Philosophie und Sozio-logie an der Goethe-Universität (1964-1971, 1975-1982 und 1983-1994) und Direktor des Max-Planck-Instituts zur Erforschung der Lebensbedingungen der wissenschaftlich-technischen Welt, ab 1980 Max-Planck-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, (1971-1981), gilt als einer der bedeutendsten lebenden deutschen Philosophen der Gegenwart. Ha-bermas rezipierte die Kritische Theorie und entwickelte darüber hinausgehende Theo-rien in der Sozialphilosophie. Die Unterlagen wurden von Jürgen Habermas (...) im Frühjahr 2010 an das Archivzentrum abgegeben. Findmittel: verzeichnet Weitere Angaben (Bestand) Zusatzinformationen: Der Vorlass von Jürgen Habermas ist komplett verzeichnet, je-doch nur für die Korrespondenzen 1954 - 1994 online freigeschaltet. Alle anderen Ver-zeichnungseinheiten sind hier nicht einsehbar. Gliederung: 1. Korrespondenzen 2. Lehre und wissenschaftliche Arbeit 3. Monographien und Aufsatzbände 4. Sammlungen -/- https://arcinsys.hessen.de/arcinsys/llist?nodeid=g156869&page=1&reload=true&sorting=41 . (shrink)

Jürgen Habermas has emerged as a sharp, and occasionally harsh, critic of the Bush administration’s policies since the Iraq war. Habermas has developed this critique in several of his short pieces and interviews, some of which are available in fine collections in both English and other languages. However, the occasional and journalistic character of Habermas’ political interventions often hide the theoretical basis of his critique. In this paper, I argue that Habermas’ critique of the Bush administration’s (...) foreign policy emanates from, and is founded upon, his conception of modernity, and specifically his views about the relationship between “particularity” and “generality.” The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how Habermas’ critique can actually be read as a critique of particularism, which Habermas sees operating behind American (and British) foreign policy, and which, in his view, compromises the key achievements of modernity (especially in its Kantian version.). (shrink)

The purpose of the paper is to analyze the thesis that an agreement between representatives of two different cultures can and should be reached at a theoretical level. The author tries to verify the Theory of Communicative Action proposed by Jürgen Habermas in the light of philosophical reflections of American neopragmatist Stanley Fish. Habermas is one of the most important and widely read social theorists in the post-Second World War era. He is also one of the authors of (...) the concept of deliberative democracy, which holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation – disinterested exchange of reasons – not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. The foundation of deliberative democracy is, according to the German thinker, a communicative action based on communicative rationality. Stanley Fish, in turn, is one of the most eminent American philosophers of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The main area of his scientific activity is the theory of literature, law, and history. In the course of his reflections, Fish constructed the concept of an interpretive communities, which implies an original view on the nature of the process of cognition, status of human convictions or beliefs, nature of communication situation and capabilities of theory. The final conclusion stemming from the reflection on Fish’s philosophy explains why Habermas’ theory is not an adequate tool to reach an intercultural agreement. (shrink)

Habermas’ theory of communicative action is explored as an orientation to the question of understanding which negotiates a pathway between two opposing (and complementary) theoretical frameworks—namely, hermeneutical-relational and empirical-analytical frameworks. His perspective grounds speech, action and understanding in the ethics of human relations. In his approach, understanding is fixed by particular events or situations about which intersubjective agreement must be achieved through the offer and acceptance of reasons that simultaneously orient actors to three worlds: the objective, the social and (...) the personal worlds. This approach raises the question as to whether the process of abstracting from the particular event to the general form, through such rational discourse, might create systems of understanding which silence individual expression and naming, particularly if such expression involves an identity that is not shared with others in the group. In other words, is the origin of an event or situation necessarily a null point for all actors? As this question is explored, metaphor comes to the fore as a complementary process of showing that which cannot be grounded in the dominant system of understanding. The pivot role of naming in the formal structure of Godel’s First Incompleteness Theorem for Number Theory demonstrates the challenge to Habermas’ theory. (shrink)

Recent debates in political theory display a renewed interest in the problem of judgment. This article critically examines the different senses of judgment that are at play in Jürgen Habermas’ theory of law. The article offers a new critical reading of Habermas’ account of the legitimacy of law, and a revisionary interpretation of the reconstructive approach to political theory that underpins it. Both of these are instrumental to an understanding of what is involved in judging the legitimacy of (...) law that is richer than has been recognized thus far by both critics and defenders of Habermas. (shrink)

A discussion of whether Habermas as a representative modernist and Lyotard as a representative postmodern echo the ancient dispute between Plato and the Sophists. My conclusion is that they do not quite do so. Each is more complex and ancient dichotomy should be revised.

Zunächst werden die Kernthesen von Habermas' Diskursethik vorgestellt, insbesondere der Universalisierungsgrundsatz U und das diskursethische Prinzip D. Eine ausführliche Analyse zeigt dann, daß Habermas' Argumentationen für diese Prinzipien in mehrfacher Hinsicht ungültig sind. Die Betrachtung früherer Varianten dieser Argumentationen und späterer Kommentare Habermas' macht zudem eine gewisse Wendung Habermas' weg von der Transzendentalpragmatik hin zum Intuitionismus und eine Abschwächung seines Begründungsanspruchs bis hin zu dessen Annullierung deutlich. Eine Kritik an vier Interpretationen von U selbst und an (...) den beiden Hauptinterpretationen von D erweist diese Moralkriterien als in vielerlei Hinsicht unbrauchbar und als bloß formelhafte Vereinigung schwer zu vereinender Ideale. (shrink)

In response to Professor Rorty’s reaction to Professor Habermas’s paper in this symposium, I confess that I am still not sure I understand Rorty’s hostility to ideals such as the ideal of truth. Such ideals as the ideal of truth -- and ideals like those of reason and morality surely stand and fall with the ideal of truth -- seem plainly to have an enormous pragmatic value. They lure us out of our too-constrained, too-limited ethnocentric or idiosyncratic frames of (...) reference. It is always possible, of course, that such ideals may be abused; they have frequently been deployed, in particular, as clubs used to beat down views and modes of behavior that are threatening or otherwise disliked. But they need not be abused. Their proven and potential value is quite extraordinary. They offer us standards which pay explicit respect to the principle that the criteria we use for evaluating ideas and modes of behavior should be nonethnocentric and nonidiosyncratic. They offer us standards that we can appeal to in luring ourselves or others to step outside of our relatively narrow present points of view here and now and toward a broader perspective that can serve us better tomorrow and elsewhere. (shrink)

The idea this article relies on is that we should rethink cultural distance between modernism and post-modernism. We can no longer support the thesis of a radical break between the two cultural periods since many of the changes that have marked our contemporary world were initiated or at least announced in the modern period. Besides the cultural and epistemic factors, the socioeconomic conditions have also contributed to shape a new sensitivity and a new outlook. One of the major contributions to (...) this change was the replacement of the epistemic pedestal - oriented toward the metaphysical knowledge of the world - with a kind of knowledge inspired by the model of sciences which determined the understanding of the world as a „standing-reserve" (Heidegger). Thus, we speak about a techno-world, which is not merely a consequence of our way of interacting with our fellow beings or the environment. It is also a consequence of our wayof creating reality. The post-humanist approach of the man - similarly to modern utopias - considers technology the main means of improving human condition. Furthermore, we need to see in post-humanism the hope of rethinking humanity in a world growingly devoid of spiritual values. (shrink)

This thesis investigates Habermas's attempt to establish a credible form of universalism in moral and political philosophy by means of the theoretical approach which he terms "discourse ethics." The central question motivating this study is whether Habermas succeeds in this ambition. Discourse ethics specifies a procedure which purports to enable all agents involved in a conflict of interest in which issues of justice are at stake to come to a rational and cooperative resolution. It proposes a position unique (...) among contemporary approaches to justice in the strength and character of its anti-relativist stance: the plurality of human cultures and the situated character of human understanding do not, according to this theory, bar the way to arriving at a minimal form of moral universalism. Although the procedure specified in communicative ethics elucidates only a narrow range of concerns--those pertaining to justice in the strict sense--it aims to do so in a way valid across all human cultures. ;Habermas's strategy for the defence of a species-wide moral universalism is, I argue, both the key feature of his position, and the least well understood. Discussion of discourse ethics to date has focussed almost exclusively on the question of its appropriateness to the context of modern, Western pluralism. An important reason for this focus has been the intricacy of Habermas's argumentative strategy, which links the recent work on discourse ethics to his longstanding project of developing a theory of communicative action. ;The principle aim of this thesis is to clarify Habermas's position by explicating his programme of justification. In so doing, I draw attention to several problems in his approach as a mechanism for cross-cultural conflict adjudication, and endeavour to provide a more perspicuous account of the relation of Habermas's theory to its main philosophical competitors, especially Rawlsian deontology, and contextualism. (shrink)

This paperback edition contains a new greatly expanded bibliography of Habermas's work.

In this article, Shea aims to overturn Jürgen Habermas’s characterization of Nietzsche in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity as a postmodern irrationalist. On Habermas’s account, Nietzsche employs Wille zur Macht both as a principle by which to invalidate the claims of metaphysics and as a primordial “other” to reason that unmasks reason as an expression of domination. If Habermas’s reading is correct, Nietzsche’s work is ultimately incoherent since it either lapses back into metaphysics or puts forward a (...) self-refuting anti-metaphysics. Contrary to Habermas, Shea argues that Nietzsche’s theoretical inquiries result from a considered methodological decision on the part of Nietzsche to suspend metaphysical interpretations. For this reason, Wille zur Macht can be read as the fabrication of a post-metaphysical principle for interpreting life rather than as a purported insight into the ultimate nature of reality and thus as a genuine alternative to the trappings of both metaphysical and anti-metaphysical philosophies. (shrink)

Habermas’ ‘ethics of citizenship’ raises a number of relevant concerns about the dangers of a secularistic exclusion of religious contributions to public deliberation, on the one hand, and the dangers of religious conflict and sectarianism in politics, on the other. Agreeing largely with these concerns, the paper identities four problems with Habermas’ approach, and attempts to overcome them: the full exclusion of religious reasons from parliamentary debate; the full inclusion of religious reasons in the informal public sphere; the (...) philosophical distinction between secular and religious reasons; and the sociological distinction between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ religions. The result is a revised version of the ethics of citizenship, which I call moderate inclusivism. Most notably, moderate inclusivism implies a replacement of Habermas’ ‘institutional translation proviso’ with a more flexible ‘conversational translation proviso’. (shrink)

The hypothesis of this paper is that legal positivism depends on the non plausibility of strong moral cognitivism because of the non necessary connection thesis between law and morality that legal positivism is supposed to acknowledge. The paper concludes that only when based on strong moral cognitivism is it consistent to sustain the typical non-positivistic thesis of the necessary connection between law and morality. Habermas’s Philosophy of law is confronted with both positions.

Habermas's criticizes Heidegger for insulating totalities of meaning from possible overturning by attempts to invalidate individual claims. I first state Habermas's criticism, then elaborate an example from Heideggerthat supports Habermas's attack. Then I defend Heidegger by distinguishing levels of meaning in Heidegger's "world" from Habermas's more propositional "lifeworld." I conclude by accepting Habermas's objection restated in terms of the contrast between transcendental and local conditions. If Heidegger is unwilling to pay the price of either Kantian (...) generality or Hegelian unity, he should give up the simple priority of his epochal understandings of being. (shrink)

In Italien war die Rezeption von Jürgen Habermas über die Jahrzehnte konstant; bibliographischen Daten zufolge steht Italien nach Deutschland und den USA an dritter Stelle. Dennoch lautet unsere These, dass das Forschungsprogramm von Habermas in der italienischen scientific community marginal war – insofern ist im soziologischen Sinne Pierre Bourdieus eher von einem akademisch-wissenschaftlichen »Feld« zu sprechen, da es bezogen auf die Habermas-Rezeption keine Homogenität und Identität gibt.

After noting the absence of a mutual confrontation, the aim of this research has been redefined in reconstructing the influence of Habermas’ writings on the work of Zygmunt Bauman – an aspect known to scholars of the Polish sociologist but not very well recognized in the international sociological community. Following a philological and critical literary approach, the Baumanian interpretations – selective, discontinuous and, often, erroneous – have been systematized into two main topics: 1) the epistemological foundations of social theory; (...) 2) the normative foundations of critical theory (and the relationship with praxis). Bauman; Habermas; sociology; (post)modernity; praxis Dopo aver constatato l’inesistenza di un reciproco confronto, lo scopo della ricerca si è ridefinito nel ricostruire l’influenza degli scritti di Habermas sull’opera di Zygmunt Bauman – un aspetto noto agli studiosi del sociologo polacco ma poco conosciuto nella comunità socio-logica internazionale. Seguendo un approccio filologico e critico letterario, le interpretazioni baumaniane – selettive, discontinue e, spesso, erronee – sono state sistematizzate in due principali temi: 1) i fonda-menti conoscitivi della teoria sociale; 2) i fondamenti normativi della teoria critica (e il rapporto con la prassi). -/- Parole chiave: Bauman; Habermas; sociologia; (post)modernità; prassi -/- In "Zygmunt Bauman. I cancelli dell’acqua", a cura di Riccardo Mazzeo. Maria Caterina Federici, Editoriale. Bauman e dell’incertezza Riccardo Mazzeo, Premessa. I cancelli dell’acqua Riccardo Mazzeo, Introduzione. Il pendolo di Zygmunt Bauman - Mauro Magatti, Siamo ancora nella modernità liquida? Un esercizio di sociologia baumaniana - Benedetto Vecchi, La missione impossibile di Zygmunt Bauman - Vanni Codeluppi, Bauman: il consumo come compito - Raffaele Federici, Forme e impressionismo nel disagio della postmodernità - Vincenzo Romania, Zygmunt Bauman e la modernità dell’Olocausto: fra crucialità delle domande e debolezza delle risposte - Daniele Francesconi, Zygmunt Bauman. L’intellettuale sulla scena - Claudio Tugnoli, La morte di "terzo grado" come stile di vita. Esorcismi della paura nell’opera di Zygmunt Bauman - Sabina Curti, Paura liquida e ruolo degli intellettuali in Zygmunt Bauman - Luca Corchia, Bauman e Habermas su teoria e prassi. Alle origini di un confronto incompiuto - Marta Carlini, Jakub Pichalski, Bibliografia ragionata degli scritti italiani di e su Zygmunt Bauman - Federico Batini, Giulia Toti, Una scuola per tutti? Riflessioni a margine di "Conversazioni sull’educazione" Recensioni. (shrink)

Nella Premessa al "Discorso filosofico della modernità" (1985) Habermas scrive, in maniera enfatica, che il tema, ricco di sfaccettature, della “modernità come progetto in-compiuto” segna l’inizio la sua riflessione e dagli anni ’80 “non gli ha dato più pace”. In effetti, la “modernità” si presenta come un “oggetto d’analisi obbligato” anche solo dal punto di vista del necessario auto-chiarimento disciplinare. È con la formazione delle società moderne che si differenziano come “forme del sapere specialistico”, la scienza politica, l’economia politica, (...) l’antropologia culturale e la sociologia. Ed è, ancora, dalla prospettiva della “riflessione filosofica” che si avvia dal tardo secolo XVIII una rinnovata consapevolezza intellettuale intorno alla coscienza storica del tempo moderno, ai principi costitutivi del “nuovo mondo” e alle “cesure” rispetto alla cultura passata. Non si deve, però, ridurre il concetto di modernità alla visione filosofica del mondo. Anche questa prospettiva – peraltro presente negli scritti di Habermas –, deve essere ricondotta all’interno del programma di ricerca della “teoria dell’evoluzione sociale”, considerando assieme i processi di “razionalizzazione culturale” del mondo vitale e la “differenziazione” di nuovi “principi di organizzazione sociale” rispetto a quelli con cui si erano riprodotte le formazioni tradizionali. Il merito dei suoi studi, una volta ricondotti a unità, è di seguire la trasformazione delle sfere culturali di valore alla luce dei problemi che coinvolgono la riproduzione delle strutture sociali e delle forme di vita tradizionali, mediando le esigenze della teorizzazione astratta e le vicende della storia con-creta. In tal senso, egli segue la tradizione di ricerca dei classici del pensiero sociale, da Comte sino alla scuola di Parsons, attraverso Marx, Durkheim e Weber. Dopo aver esposto in che cosa consiste, secondo il nostro Autore, il “razionalismo occidentale”, qui, ci limitiamo a fornire un indice ragionato dei temi con cui Habermas ha ricostruito il concetto “formazione sociale moderna” attraverso l'analisi degli “albori della modernità”, delle “società capitalistico-liberali” e delle “società contemporanee”. (shrink)

The essay illustrates several of the senses and implications of Jürgen Habermas's understanding and use in his works of the idea of emancipation. It does this by examining four transitional phases of the emancipation process: from domination to exploitation; from exploitation to alienation; from alienation to liberation; and from liberation to emancipation. Against Habermas, the article concludes that emancipation is a cyclical process, referring to the progressive realizations and developments of humanity over time.

Under the influence of Hilary Putnam’s collapse of the fact/value dichotomy, a resurging approach that challenges the movements of American pragmatism and discourse ethics, I tease out in the first section of my paper the demand for the warranted assertibility hypothesis in Putnam’s sense that may be possible, relying on moral realism to get rid of ‘rampant Platonism’. Tracing back to ‘communicative action’ or the Habermasian way that puts forward the reciprocal understanding of discourse instigates the idea of life-world as (...) composed of ‘culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of interpretative patterns’, this section looks for whether Habermas’ psychoanalysis of prolonged discussion can accord with Putnam’s thick ethical terms or not. The last section of the paper pitfalls Putnam’s stance to accepting Habermas’ ‘discourse ethics’ that centers around the context of entangling ‘rational thoughts’ to ‘communication’, but he introduces the idea of fallibilism in a rational query that also attacks the Habermasian metaphysical idea of the validity of ethical statements that goes towards the truth. My next attempt is to see whether Putnam’s objective dictum towards morality that resonates the collapse of fact/value dichotomy from a universalistic stand can successfully evade Rorty’s naive realism and Habermas’ ‘sociologism about values’ respectively. This sort of claim insists on a universalizable pattern of culture-relative value. I consider that the idea of a fact/value dichotomy engages with the inextricable entanglement between the normative and descriptive content, besides the epistemic values having exclusively intertwined with the structure of factual discourse that intends towards collapsing the fact/value dichotomy, a subjective universalizability predilection. (shrink)

In this paper, making reference to Robert Brandom's philosophical proposal - and against the background of Brandom's debate with Jürgen Habermas - I shall endeavor, first, to define the relation between recognition and normativity and then between recognition and criticism; in the final part of the paper I shall suggest a perspective that approaches recognition in terms of capacities. On this basis I attempt to see the critical attitude as something that is founded more on individual potentials than on (...) formal criteria and that is essentially connected with a power of redescription: a dialectical anthropology of recognition is thus the most promising base to account for that which substantiates our critical powers. (shrink)

The aim of this study is to discern intersections between the intellectual path of the young Habermas and the issues addressed by the Positivismusstreit, the dispute between Popper and Adorno about methodology in the social sciences. I will present two perspectives, focusing on different temporal moments and interpretative problems. First, I will investigate the young Habermas’ relationship to the intellectual tradition of the Frankfurt School: his views on philosophy and the social sciences, normative bases of critical theory and (...) political attitudes. Second, I will reconstruct Habermas’ contemplation of the Positivismusstreit, in light of his social scientific research programme in the 1960s. The thesis supported is that Habermas developed a position diverging from those of Adorno and Horkheimer, and that his position reasserted the agenda of the ‘first critical theory’. This article highlight the discontinuity between the first and the second generation of the Frankfurt School, the constructive openness to other philosophical and sociological traditions, as well as the aporias of a theory of knowledge not yet oriented towards the programme of reconstructive sciences. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to show how Habermas used the writings of George Herbert Mead. This subject has already been examined by the critical literature; however, the originality of this analysis with respect to previous studies lies in its philological approach. The result of the research proves that the interest of Habermas towards the American social psychologist originates well before the Theory of Communicative Action and accompanies the elaboration of Habermas’ research programme for over two (...) decades. It is interesting to observe that the references to Mead’s writings continued to be very selective and focused on the same three particular areas: on the methodological level, around the problem of the foundation of the social sciences; on the theoretical level, around ontogenetic and phylogenetic development; on the moral level, around the justification of the discourse ethic and, more generally, the idea of a post-metaphysical concept of reason. This paper also shows the remarkable coherence with which Habermas is developing a general theory of society and a philosophy of rational discourse. (shrink)

Usually regarded as a 1970s phenomenon, this article demonstrates that the debate between Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann continued until Luhmann’s death in 1998, and that the development of the two theorists’ positions during the 1980s and 1990s was characterised by convergence rather than by divergence. In the realm of legal theory, the article suggests, convergence advanced to the extent that Habermas’ discourse theory may be characterised as a normative superstructure to Luhmann’s descriptive theory of society. It is (...) further shown that the debate’s result was an almost complete absorption of Habermas’ theory by Luhmann’s systems theoretical complex – an outcome facilitated by Luhmann’s deliberate translation of central Habermasian concepts into systems theoretical concepts. The article argues that both the debate and Habermas’ conversion were made possible because not only Habermas’ but also Luhmann’s work can be considered a further development of the German idealist tradition. What Luhmann did not acknowledge was that this manoeuvre permitted the achievement of Habermas’ normative objectives; nor did he notice that it could eradicate a central flaw in the system theoretical construction, by allowing the context within which distinctions are drawn to be mapped – an issue of pivotal importance for grasping relationships between different social systems, and coordinating them, via the deployment of legal instruments. (shrink)

In the near future we may be able to manipulate human embryos through genetic intervention. Jürgen Habermas has argued against the development of technologies which could make such intervention possible. His argument has received widespread criticism among bioethicists. These critics argue that Habermas's argument relies on implausible assumptions about human nature. Moreover, they challenge Habermas's claim that genetic intervention adds something new to intergenerational relationships pointing out that parents have already strong control over their children through education. (...) In this paper a new approach to Habermas's theory is suggested which makes clear that he has a strong point against genetic intervention. A more charitable reading of Habermas with respect to his assumptions concerning human nature is presented. Moreover, Habermas's assumption concerning the power of genetic controlling is evaluated. By means of a close comparison of genetic and educational control it is shown that Habermas's argument relies on much weaker assumptions than generally understood. (shrink)