Postmetaphysical Thinking (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought) [ Jürgen Habermas, William Mark Hohengarten] on *FREE*. It is hard to think of a contemporary philosopher whose achievement rivals that of Jürgen Habermas, in terms of range, comprehensiveness and. Postmetaphysical thinking reflects an acceptance of principled critiques of earlier, more metaphysi- cal approaches to philosophical questions. For Habermas.
|Published (Last):||2 December 2009|
|PDF File Size:||9.15 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In Part I, Habermas deals with the function of myth and religious ritual as integral to the emergence of human society as such. However, the distinctively human need to use language to secure social collaboration puts stresses and strains on the individual, who is thrown back on her own postmeraphysical in new ways. However, in a response postmeta;hysical the book, his lifelong friend and colleague Karl-Otto Apel pointed out that Habermas had conflated two distinct meanings of self-reflection.
As an inheritor of the Hegelian-Marxist tradition of the Frankfurt School, Habermas began with the assumption that humankind can be understood as a kind of macro-subject of its own history — albeit, so far, in an unconscious, self-estranged guise.
In the final part he addresses the thorny and acutely topical question of the political relations between the secular and religious citizens of contemporary states, taking as his most important interlocutor John Rawls.
An Conversation with Eduardo Mendieta 5.
Postmetaphysical Thinking II | Social Philosophy | General Philosophy | Subjects | Wiley
This possibility is not available when epistemic issues are mixed up with postmettaphysical and evaluative ones, as was standardly the case in the pre-modern world. Postmetaphysical thinking is, in the first place, the historical answer to the crisis of metaphysics following Hegel, when the central metaphysical figures of thought began to totter under the pressure exerted by social developments and by developments within science.
Many soft naturalists are happy to leave it at that, indifferent to the objection that perspectives that expect to be taken seriously imply ontological commitments. Habermas argues that a distinctively human form of social life first emerged when action-coordination became dependent on the communicative forging of a shared perspective on objects in the world poostmetaphysical a feat of which higher primates, despite their intelligence and ability postmetaphysicak use signals, are not capable.
He is thus concerned with developing a theory of individuation within a discourse of social differentiation.
In developing communication theory, Habermas is, in our terms, developing a theory of society that is not reducible to a simple totality but has social complexity as its ground i. In the second section, the uneasy relationship between religion and postmetaphysical thinking takes centre stage. Correlatively, in developing his social theory, Habermas sought to defend the progressive potential of the modern differentiation of institutionalized discourses structured forms of open, egalitarian argumentation dealing with scientific knowledge-claims, claims to morality and justice, and claims to thinoing authenticity pre-eminently in the form of works of art.
But, in the first part he concedes further weaknesses of purely discursive procedures. But is this a distinction without a difference? From this perspective, his thinking can be broadly divided into three stages: William Mark Hohengarten, Cambridge It covers a rich thin,ing of topics, honing in particularly on the meaning of religion in public life.
Our religious traditions, he suggests, still resonate in the semantic depths of our fundamental moral and ethical concepts — even in the anemic versions of them traded by professional philosophers. In short, it would fail adequately to respect the distinction between fides quae creditur and fides qua creditur — between articles of belief and a lived faith.
For him, the human life-world is constituted and interpreted by means of a repertoire of concepts incommensurable with those of the natural sciences. Hence, up until the publication of Knowledge and Human Interests in the late s, he conceived of critical social theory as helping members of modern societies to become aware of and capable of overcoming the unperceived constraints and ideological rigidities which prevent them from collectively shaping the social order they inhabit.
Habermas draws heavily on Mead to develop a theory of social interaction that is not dependent upon idealist notions of the self positing of the ego which, upto Fichte, depended upon the I as the original source of consciousness. In developing Mead’s idea of the social ego Habermas puts forward that consciousness is not a originary act of the ego, but an external force that encroaches inwardly and forms the ego within a set of responses to stimuli from the other, wherein the I through being refered to by another can gain knowledge of himself in seeing how a second actor organises his interlocutionary demands.
What balance sheet can we draw up of his tackling of these issues, on the evidence of the current volume? According to him, this enterprise is no longer plausible, because philosophy must also bow to the separation of validity spheres, and conceive of itself either as collaborative Wissenschaftseeking universal structures underpinning human capabilities, or merely as the reflexive illumination of a particular socio-cultural world.
The final section includes essays on the role of religion in the political context postmetaphyscial a post-secular, liberal society.
Request an Evaluation Copy for this title. In addition to these multiple strands of activity, over the years Habermas has also published twelve volumes of Kleine Politische Schriftenhis interventions — sometimes more academic, sometimes more journalistic and even polemical — on topical social and political issues. After more than sixty years of intellectual endeavour, Habermas has accumulated an oeuvre which not only stands in the tradition of the great systematic social thinkers of the nineteenth and early twentieth century — Hegel, Marx, Durkheim, Weber — but can claim a dignified place beside them.
Habermas is all too aware that he may simply be inviting metaphysics in through the back door. You are currently using the site but have requested postmetzphysical page in the site.
Religion and Postmetaphysical Thinking: The type of self-reflection achieved, for example, by the patient in psychoanalysis — who begins to penetrate and comprehend the opacities of her individual life history — is a process quite distinct from the kind of transcendental reflection inaugurated by Kant, which seeks to delineate the universal structures underpinning cognition and other human competencies.
Such a conflation, Apel argued, is dangerous, because it encourages the belief that reflective political engagement in a risk-laden concrete situation could itself have the status of a kind of science. His principal efforts were directed to proving the meaningfulness of seeking ultimate agreement regarding cognitive truth and practical morality, by showing that simply to engage with one another in discussion commits us to the ideal of a universally valid consensus in normative and theoretical matters.
The volume is divided into three parts, each of which deals with the interface between philosophy — or, more generally, rational argumentative discourse — and religion, but focuses on a distinct domain of philosophical enquiry.
This volume will be of great interest to students and scholars in philosophy, religion and the social sciences and humanities generally. It needs this connection in order to make up for what it has renounced by insisting on their separation. Thomas McCarthy, Cambridge Soft naturalists typically argue that the human world of meaning, mentation and responsible agency, and the world viewed as a causal nexus of physical processes are not in conflict with one another.
Added to Your Shopping Cart.