Jürgen Habermas

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jürgen Habermas
Dr. phil. hab.
)
Spouse
Ute Wesselhöft
​
(m. 1955)​
Children
Notable ideas
Signature

Jürgen Habermas (

social theorist in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism. His work addresses communicative rationality and the public sphere
.

Associated with the

poststructuralism
.

Biography

Part of a series on the
Frankfurt School
Major works
Notable theorists
Important concepts
Related topics

Habermas was born in Düsseldorf, Rhine Province, in 1929.[7] He was born with a cleft palate and had corrective surgery twice during childhood.[8] Habermas argues that his speech disability made him think differently about the importance of deep dependence and of communication.[9] He grew up in Gummersbach.

As a young teenager, he was profoundly affected by

milieu, his grandfather being the director of the seminary in Gummersbach. He studied at the universities of Göttingen (1949/50), Zurich (1950/51), and Bonn (1951–54) and earned a doctorate in philosophy from Bonn in 1954 with a dissertation written on the conflict between "the Absolute" and history in Schelling's thought, entitled, Das Absolute und die Geschichte. Von der Zwiespältigkeit in Schellings Denken ("The Absolute and History: On the Schism in Schelling's Thought").[10] His dissertation committee included Erich Rothacker and Oskar Becker.[10]

From 1956 on, he studied

University of Heidelberg (at the instigation of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Karl Löwith) in 1962, which he accepted. In this same year he gained his first serious public attention, in Germany, with the publication of his habilitation. In 1964, strongly supported by Adorno, Habermas returned to Frankfurt to take over Horkheimer's chair in philosophy and sociology. The philosopher Albrecht Wellmer
was his assistant in Frankfurt from 1966 to 1970.

He accepted the position of Director of the

Max Planck Institute for the Study of the Scientific-Technical World in Starnberg (near Munich) in 1971, and worked there until 1983, two years after the publication of his magnum opus, The Theory of Communicative Action. He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1984.[12]

Habermas then returned to his chair at Frankfurt and the directorship of the Institute for Social Research. Since retiring from Frankfurt in 1993, Habermas has continued to publish extensively. In 1986, he received the

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, which is the highest honour awarded in German research. He also holds the position of "permanent visiting" professor at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, and "Theodor Heuss Professor" at The New School, New York
.

Habermas was awarded the

The Times Higher Education Guide, ahead of Max Weber and behind Erving Goffman.[14] Bibliometric studies demonstrate his continuing influence and increasing relevance.[15]

Jürgen Habermas was the father of Rebekka Habermas (1959–2023), historian of German social and cultural history and professor of modern history at the University of Göttingen.

Teacher and mentor

Habermas was a famed teacher and mentor. Among his most prominent students were the pragmatic philosopher Herbert Schnädelbach (theorist of discourse distinction and rationality), the political sociologist

Hertie School of Governance in Berlin), the social philosopher Johann Arnason (professor at La Trobe University and chief editor of the journal Thesis Eleven), the social philosopher Hans-Herbert Kögler (Chair of Philosophy at the University of North Florida), the sociological theorist Hans Joas (professor at the University of Erfurt and at the University of Chicago), the theorist of societal evolution Klaus Eder, the social philosopher Axel Honneth, the political theorist David Rasmussen (professor at Boston College and chief editor of the journal Philosophy & Social Criticism), the environmental ethicist Konrad Ott, the anarcho-capitalist philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe (who came to reject much of Habermas's thought),[16] the American philosopher Thomas McCarthy, the co-creator of mindful inquiry in social research Jeremy J. Shapiro, the political philosopher Cristina Lafont (Harold H. and Virginia Anderson Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern University), and the assassinated Serbian prime minister Zoran Đinđić
.

Philosophy and social theory

Habermas has constructed a comprehensive framework of philosophy and social theory drawing on a number of intellectual traditions:[17]

Jürgen Habermas considers his major contribution to be the development of the concept and theory of communicative reason or communicative rationality, which distinguishes itself from the

speech-act philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin and John Searle, the sociological theory of the interactional constitution of mind and self of George Herbert Mead, the theories of moral development of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, and the discourse ethics of his Frankfurt colleague and fellow student Karl-Otto Apel
.

Habermas's works resonate within the traditions of Kant and

radicalism, and exaggerations.[19]

Within sociology, Habermas's major contribution was the development of a comprehensive theory of

instrumental rationality and rationalization on the other. This includes a critique from a communicative standpoint of the differentiation-based theory of social systems developed by Niklas Luhmann, a student of Talcott Parsons
.

His defence of modernity and civil society has been a source of inspiration to others, and is considered a major philosophical alternative to the varieties of poststructuralism. He has also offered an influential analysis of late capitalism.

Habermas perceives the rationalization,

human species. Habermas contends that communicative competence has developed through the course of evolution, but in contemporary society it is often suppressed or weakened by the way in which major domains of social life, such as the market, the state, and organizations, have been given over to or taken over by strategic/instrumental rationality, so that the logic of the system supplants that of the lifeworld
.

Reconstructive science

Habermas introduces the concept of "reconstructive science" with a double purpose: to place the "general theory of society" between philosophy and social science and re-establish the rift between the "great theorization" and the "empirical research". The model of "rational reconstructions" represents the main thread of the surveys about the "structures" of the world of life ("culture", "society" and "personality") and their respective "functions" (cultural reproductions, social integrations and socialization). For this purpose, the dialectics between "symbolic representation" of "the structures subordinated to all worlds of life" ("internal relationships") and the "material reproduction" of the social systems in their complex ("external relationships" between social systems and environment) has to be considered.

This model finds an application, above all, in the "theory of the social evolution", starting from the reconstruction of the necessary conditions for a phylogeny of the socio-cultural life forms (the "hominization") until an analysis of the development of "social formations", which Habermas subdivides into primitive, traditional, modern and contemporary formations. "This paper is an attempt, primarily, to formalize the model of "reconstruction of the logic of development" of "social formations" summed up by Habermas through the differentiation between vital world and social systems (and, within them, through the "rationalization of the world of life" and the "growth in complexity of the social systems"). Secondly, it tries to offer some methodological clarifications about the "explanation of the dynamics" of "historical processes" and, in particular, about the "theoretical meaning" of the evolutional theory's propositions. Even if the German sociologist considers that the "ex-post rational reconstructions" and "the models system/environment" cannot have a complete "historiographical application", these certainly act as a general premise in the argumentative structure of the "historical explanation".[20]

The public sphere

Further information: Public sphere

In

Louis XIV's Palace of Versailles was meant to show the greatness of the French state and its King by overpowering the senses of visitors to the Palace.[21] Habermas identifies "representational" culture as corresponding to the feudal stage of development according to Marxist theory, arguing that the coming of the capitalist stage of development marked the appearance of Öffentlichkeit (the public sphere).[22] In the culture characterized by Öffentlichkeit, there occurred a public space outside of the control by the state, where individuals exchanged views and knowledge.[23]

In Habermas's view, the growth in newspapers, journals, reading clubs, Masonic lodges, and coffeehouses in 18th-century Europe, all in different ways, marked the gradual replacement of "representational" culture with Öffentlichkeit culture.[23] Habermas argued that the essential characteristic of the Öffentlichkeit culture was its "critical" nature.[23] Unlike "representational" culture where only one party was active and the other passive, the Öffentlichkeit culture was characterized by a dialogue as individuals either met in conversation, or exchanged views via the print media.[23] Habermas maintains that as Britain was the most liberal country in Europe, the culture of the public sphere emerged there first around 1700, and the growth of Öffentlichkeit culture took place over most of the 18th century in Continental Europe.[23] In his view, the French Revolution was in large part caused by the collapse of "representational" culture, and its replacement by Öffentlichkeit culture.[23] Though Habermas's main concern in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere was to expose what he regarded as the deceptive nature of free institutions in the West, his book had a major effect on the historiography of the French Revolution.[22]

According to Habermas, a variety of factors resulted in the eventual decay of the public sphere, including the growth of a

rational consensus
.

His most known work to date, the

mass consumption.[24] These reinforcing trends rationalize public life.[24] Disfranchisement of citizens occurs as political parties and interest groups become rationalized and representative democracy replaces participatory one.[24] In consequence, boundaries between public and private, the individual and society, the system and the lifeworld are deteriorating.[24] Democratic public life cannot develop where matters of public importance are not discussed by citizens.[25] An "ideal speech situation"[26] requires participants to have the same capacities of discourse, social equality and their words are not confused by ideology or other errors.[25] In this version of the consensus theory of truth
Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.

Habermas has expressed optimism about the possibility of the revival of the public sphere.

decision-making process
.

Habermas versus postmodernists

Habermas offered some early criticisms in an essay, "Modernity versus Postmodernity" (1981),[28] which has achieved wide recognition. In that essay, Habermas raises the issue of whether, in light of the failures of the twentieth century, we "should try to hold on to the intentions of the Enlightenment, feeble as they may be, or should we declare the entire project of modernity a lost cause?"[29] Habermas refuses to give up on the possibility of a rational, "scientific" understanding of the life-world.

Habermas has several main criticisms of postmodernism:

  1. Postmodernists are equivocal about whether they are producing serious theory or literature;
  2. Postmodernists are animated by normative sentiments, but the nature of those sentiments remains concealed from the reader;
  3. Postmodernism has a totalizing perspective that fails "to differentiate phenomena and practices that occur within modern society";[29]
  4. Postmodernists ignore everyday life and its practices, which Habermas finds absolutely central.

Key dialogues and engagement with politics

Positivism dispute

Main article: Positivism dispute

The

Theodor Adorno
, Jürgen Habermas) in 1961, about the methodology of the social sciences. It grew into a broad discussion within German sociology from 1961 to 1969.

Habermas and Gadamer

There is a controversy between Habermas and Hans-Georg Gadamer about limits of hermeneutics. Gadamer completed his magnum opus, Truth and Method, in 1960, and engaged in his debate with Habermas over the possibility of transcending history and culture in order to find a truly objective position from which to critique society.

During the 1960s, Gadamer supported Habermas and advocated for him to be offered a job at Heidelberg before he had completed his Habilitation, despite Max Horkheimer's objections. While they both criticized positivism, a philosophical disagreement arose between them in the 1970s. This disagreement expanded the scope of Gadamer's philosophical influence. Despite fundamental agreements between them, such as starting from the hermeneutic tradition and returning to Greek practical philosophy, Habermas argued that Gadamer's emphasis on tradition and prejudice blinded him to the ideological operation of power. Habermas believed that Gadamer's approach failed to enable critical reflection on the sources of ideology in society. He accused Gadamer of endorsing a dogmatic stance toward tradition, which made it difficult to identify distortions in understanding. Gadamer countered that refusing the universal nature of hermeneutics was the more dogmatic stance because it affirmed the deception that the subject can free itself from the past.[30]

Habermas and Foucault

Main article: Foucault–Habermas debate

There is a dispute concerning whether

power, reason, ethics, modernity, democracy, civil society, and social action
.

Habermas and Luhmann

Niklas Luhmann proposed that society could be successfully analyzed through systems theory. There is a conflict between Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action and Luhmann's systems theory.

Habermas and Apel

Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel both support a postmetaphysical, universal moral theory, but they disagree on the nature and justification of this principle. Habermas disagrees with Apel's view that the principle is a transcendental condition of human activity, while Apel asserts that it is. They each criticize the other's position. Habermas argues that Apel is too concerned with transcendental conditions, while Apel argues that Habermas doesn't value critical discourse enough.[31]

Habermas and Rawls

Main article: Habermas–Rawls debate

There is a debate between Habermas and John Rawls. The debate centers around the question of how to do political philosophy under conditions of cultural pluralism, if the aim of political philosophy is to uncover the normative foundation of a modern liberal democracy. Habermas believes that Rawls's view is inconsistent with the idea of popular sovereignty, while Rawls argues that political legitimacy is solely a matter of sound moral reasoning or that democratic will formation has been unduly downgraded in his theory.[32][33]

Historikerstreit (Historians' Quarrel)

Main article: Historikerstreit

Habermas is famous as a

popular press to attack the German historians Ernst Nolte, Michael Stürmer, Klaus Hildebrand and Andreas Hillgruber. Habermas first expressed his views on the above-mentioned historians in the Die Zeit on 11 July 1986 in a feuilleton (a type of culture and arts opinion essay in German newspapers) entitled "A Kind of Settlement of Damages". Habermas criticized Nolte, Hildebrand, Stürmer and Hillgruber for "apologistic" history writing in regard to the Nazi era, and for seeking to "close Germany's opening to the West" that in Habermas's view had existed since 1945.[34]

Habermas argued that Nolte, Stürmer, Hildebrand and Hillgruber had tried to detach Nazi rule and the

reputation of the Wehrmacht (German Army) during World War II. Habermas wrote that Stürmer was trying to create a "vicarious religion" in German history which, together with the work of Hillgruber, glorifying the last days of the German Army on the Eastern Front, was intended to serve as a "kind of NATO philosophy colored with German nationalism".[35] About Hillgruber's statement that Adolf Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews "because only such a 'racial revolution' could lend permanence to the world-power status of his Reich", Habermas wrote: "Since Hillgruber does not use the verb in the subjunctive, one does not know whether the historian has adopted the perspective of the particulars this time too".[36]

Habermas wrote: "The unconditional opening of the Federal Republic to the political culture of the West is the greatest intellectual achievement of our postwar period; my generation should be especially proud of this. This event cannot and should not be stabilized by a kind of NATO philosophy colored with German nationalism. The opening of the Federal Republic has been achieved precisely by overcoming the ideology of Central Europe that our revisionists are trying to warm up for us with their geopolitical drumbeat about "the old geographically central position of the Germans in Europe" (Stürmer) and "the reconstruction of the destroyed European Center" (Hillgruber). The only patriotism that will not estrange us from the West is a constitutional patriotism."[34]

The so-called Historikerstreit ("Historians' Quarrel") was not at all one-sided, because Habermas was himself attacked by scholars like Joachim Fest,[37][38] Hagen Schulze,[39] Horst Möller,[40] Imanuel Geiss[41] and Klaus Hildebrand.[42] In turn, Habermas was supported by historians such as Martin Broszat,[43] Eberhard Jäckel,[44] Hans Mommsen,[45] and Hans-Ulrich Wehler.[46]

Habermas and Derrida

Habermas and Jacques Derrida engaged in a series of disputes beginning in the 1980s and culminating in a mutual understanding and friendship in the late 1990s that lasted until Derrida's death in 2004.[47] They originally came in contact when Habermas invited Derrida to speak at The University of Frankfurt in 1984. The next year Habermas published "Beyond a Temporalized Philosophy of Origins: Derrida" in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity in which he described Derrida's method as being unable to provide a foundation for social critique.[48] Derrida, citing Habermas as an example, remarked that, "those who have accused me of reducing philosophy to literature or logic to rhetoric ... have visibly and carefully avoided reading me".[49] After Derrida's final rebuttal in 1989 the two philosophers did not continue, but, as Derrida described it, groups in the academy "conducted a kind of 'war', in which we ourselves never took part, either personally or directly".[47]

At the end of the 1990s, Habermas approached Derrida at a party held at an American university where both were lecturing. They then met at Paris over dinner, and participated afterwards in many joint projects. In 2000 they held a joint seminar on problems of philosophy, right, ethics, and politics at the University of Frankfurt.[47] In December 2000, in Paris, Habermas gave a lecture entitled "How to answer the ethical question?" at the Judeities. Questions for Jacques Derrida conference organized by Joseph Cohen and Raphael Zagury-Orly. Following the lecture by Habermas, both thinkers engaged in a very heated debate on Heidegger and the possibility of Ethics. The conference volume was published at the Editions Galilée (Paris) in 2002, and subsequently in English at Fordham University Press (2007).

In the aftermath of

Bush administration's demands upon European nations for support in the coming Iraq War.[50] Habermas has offered further context for this declaration in an interview.[citation needed
]

Religious dialogue

Habermas's attitudes toward religion have changed throughout the years. Analyst Phillippe Portier identifies three phases in Habermas's attitude towards this social sphere: the first, in the decade of 1980, when the younger Jürgen, in the spirit of Marx, argued against religion seeing it as an "alienating reality" and "control tool"; the second phase, from the mid-1980s to the beginning of the 21st century, when he stopped discussing it and, as a secular commentator, relegated it to matters of private life; and the third, from then until now, when Habermas saw a positive social role of religion.[51]

In an interview in 1999 Habermas had stated:

For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.[52][53][54]

The original German (from the Habermas Forum website) of the disputed quotation is:

Das Christentum ist für das normative Selbstverständnis der Moderne nicht nur eine Vorläufergestalt oder ein Katalysator gewesen. Der egalitäre Universalismus, aus dem die Ideen von Freiheit und solidarischem Zusammenleben, von autonomer Lebensführung und Emanzipation, von individueller Gewissensmoral, Menschenrechten und Demokratie entsprungen sind, ist unmittelbar ein Erbe der jüdischen Gerechtigkeits- und der christlichen Liebesethik. In der Substanz unverändert, ist dieses Erbe immer wieder kritisch angeeignet und neu interpretiert worden. Dazu gibt es bis heute keine Alternative. Auch angesichts der aktuellen Herausforderungen einer postnationalen Konstellation zehren wir nach wie vor von dieser Substanz. Alles andere ist postmodernes Gerede.

— Jürgen Habermas, Zeit der Übergänge (2001), p. 174f.

This statement has been misquoted in a number of articles and books, where Habermas instead is quoted for saying:

Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.[55][56]

In his book Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion (Between Naturalism and Religion, 2005), Habermas stated that the forces of religious strength, as a result of multiculturalism and immigration, are stronger than in previous decades, and, therefore, there is a need of tolerance which must be understood as a two-way street:

tolerate the role of religious people in the public square and vice versa.[57][58]

In early 2007,

Joseph Ratzinger (elected as Pope Benedict XVI in 2005), entitled The Dialectics of Secularization. The dialogue took place on 14 January 2004 after an invitation to both thinkers by the Catholic Academy of Bavaria in Munich.[59]
It addressed contemporary questions such as:

In this debate a shift of Habermas became evident—in particular, his rethinking of the public role of religion. Habermas stated that he wrote as a "methodological atheist," which means that when doing philosophy or social science, he presumed nothing about particular religious beliefs. Yet while writing from this perspective his evolving position towards the role of religion in society led him to some challenging questions, and as a result conceding some ground in his dialogue with the future Pope, that would seem to have consequences which further complicated the positions he holds about a communicative rational solution to the problems of modernity. Habermas believes that even for self-identified liberal thinkers, "to exclude religious voices from the public square is highly illiberal."

In addition, Habermas has popularized the concept of "post-secular" society, to refer to current times in which the idea of modernity is perceived as unsuccessful and at times, morally failed, so that, rather than a stratification or separation, a new peaceful dialogue and coexistence between faith and reason must be sought in order to learn mutually.[60]

Socialist dialogue

Habermas has sided with other 20th-century commentators on Marx such as Hannah Arendt who have indicated concerns with the limits of totalitarian perspectives often associated with Marx's over-estimation of the emancipatory potential of the forces of production. Arendt had presented this in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism and Habermas extends this critique in his writings on functional reductionism in the life-world in his Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. As Habermas states:

…traditional Marxist analysis… today, when we use the means of the critique of political economy… can no longer make clear predictions: for that, one would still have to assume the autonomy of a self-reproducing economic system. I do not believe in such an autonomy. Precisely for this reason, the laws governing the economic system are no longer identical to the ones Marx analyzed. Of course, this does not mean that it would be wrong to analyze the mechanism which drives the economic system; but in order for the orthodox version of such an analysis to be valid, the influence of the political system would have to be ignored.[17]

Habermas reiterated the positions that what refuted Marx and his theory of class struggle was the "pacification of class conflict" by the welfare state, which had developed in the West "since 1945", thanks to "a reformist relying on the instruments of Keynesian economics".[61][62] Italian philosopher and historian Domenico Losurdo criticised the main point of these claims as "marked by the absence of a question that should be obvious:— Was the advent of the welfare state the inevitable result of a tendency inherent in capitalism? Or was it the result of political and social mobilization by the subaltern classes—in the final analysis, of a class struggle? Had the German philosopher posed this question, perhaps he would have avoided assuming the permanence of the welfare state, whose precariousness and progressive dismantlement are now obvious to everyone".[62]

Controversy about wars

In 1999, Habermas addressed the Kosovo War. Habermas defended NATO's intervention in an article for Die Zeit, which stirred controversy.[63]

In 2001, Habermas argued that the United States should not go to war in Iraq.[64]

European Union

During the European debt crisis, Habermas criticized Angela Merkel's leadership in Europe. In 2013, Habermas clashed with Wolfgang Streeck, who argued the kind of European federalism espoused by Habermas as the root of the continent's crisis.[65]

Awards

Major works

Main article: Jürgen Habermas bibliography

See also

References

  1. ^ "Pragmatism". iep.utm.edu. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  2. ^ Bordum, Anders (2005). "Immanuel Kant, Jürgen Habermas and the categorical imperative". Philosophy & Social Criticism. 31 (7).
  3. ^ "Habermas". Collins English Dictionary.
  4. ISBN 978-3-411-04066-7
    , "Jürgen" p. 446 and "Habermas" p. 383.
  5. ISBN 978-3-11-018202-6
    .
  6. ^ Cf. Thomas Kupka, Jürgen Habermas' diskurstheoretische Reformulierung des klassischen Vernunftrechts, Kritische Justiz 27 (1994), pp. 461–469. The continuity with the natural law tradition was controversial at the time, see the reply by Habermas's PhD-student Klaus Günther, Diskurstheorie des Rechts oder liberales Naturrecht in diskurstheoretischem Gewande?, Kritische Justiz 27 (1994), pp. 470–487.
  7. ^ "The philosopher who rejected a €225,000 prize from the UAE – DW – 05/03/2021". dw.com. Retrieved 28 March 2024.
  8. SSRN 1451092
    .
  9. ^ Habermas, Jürgen (2008). "First". Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays.
  10. ^
    doi:10.11588/DIGLIT.41402
    . Retrieved 3 December 2022.
  11. ISBN 0-631-21350-3
    .
  12. ^ f "Book of Members, 1780–2010: Chapter H". American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 19 April 2011. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  13. ^ Jürgen Habermas (2004) Public space and political public sphere – the biographical roots of two motifs in my thought.(Commemorative Lecture, Kyoto) Archived 4 February 2012 at the Wayback Machine (pp. 2–4)
  14. ^ "The most cited authors of books in the humanities". timeshighereducation.co.uk. 26 March 2009. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
  15. S2CID 210568613
    .
  16. ^ Lew Rockwell, introduction to Hoppe's A Short History of Man (2015), Auburn, Mississippi: Mises Institute, p. 9.
  17. ^ a b c Habermas, Jürgen (1981). Kleine Politische Schrifen I-IV (in German). p. 500.
  18. ^ Müller-Doohm, Stefan (2008). Jürgen Habermas. Suhrkamp BasisBiographie. Vol. 38. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
  19. ^ a b Calhoun 2002, p. 351
  20. ^ Corchia, Luca (1 September 2008). "Explicative models of complexity. The reconstructions of social evolution for Jürgen Habermas". In Balbi, S; Scepi, G; Russolillo, G; et al. (eds.). Book of Short Abstracts. Vol. 7th International Conference on Social Science Methodology – RC33 – Logic and Methodology in Sociology. Napoli, IT: Jovene Editore.
  21. ^ a b Blanning, T. C. W. (1998) [1987]. The French Revolution Class War or Culture Clash? (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 26.
  22. ^ a b Blanning 1998, pp. 26–27
  23. ^ a b c d e f Blanning 1998, p. 27
  24. ^ a b c d e Calhoun 2002, p. 353
  25. ^ a b Calhoun 2002, p. 354
  26. ISBN 978-0-8020-8761-4
    .
  27. ^ a b Calhoun 2002, p. 355
  28. JSTOR 487859
    .
  29. ^
    McGraw-Hill
    . pp. 567–568.
  30. ^ Barthold, Lauren Swayne. "Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900—2002)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 February 2023.
  31. S2CID 144776550
    .
  32. Journal of Philosophy
    . 92 (3): 109–131.
  33. Journal of Philosophy
    . 92 (3): 132–180.
  34. ^
    Humanities Press
    . pp. 34–44 [43].
  35. Humanities Press
    . pp. 34–44 [42–43].
  36. Humanities Press
    . pp. 34–44 [37–38].
  37. Humanities Press
    . pp. 63–71 [64–65].
  38. Humanities Press
    . pp. 264–265.
  39. Humanities Press
    . pp. 93–97 [94].
  40. Humanities Press
    . pp. 216–221 [216–218].
  41. Humanities Press
    . pp. 254–258 [256].
  42. ^ Hildebrand, Klaus, "The Age of Tyrants: History and Politics The Administrators of the Enlightenment, the Risk of Scholarship and the Preservation of a Worldview A Reply to Jürgen Habermas", pp. 50–55, & "He Who Wants To Escape the Abyss Will Have Sound It Very Precisely: Is the New German History Writing Revisionist?" pp. 188–195 from Forever In The Shadow of Hitler? ed. Piper (1993).
  43. ^ Broszat, Martin, "Where the Roads Part: History Is Not A Suitable Substitute for a Religion of Nationalism", pp. 123–129, Forever In The Shadow of Hitler? ed. Piper (1993), p. 127.
  44. ^ Jäckel, Eberhard, "The Impoverished Practice of Insinuation: The Singular Aspect of National Socialist Crimes Cannot Be Denied", pp. 74–78 from Forever In The Shadow of Hitler? ed. Piper (1993), pp. 74–75.
  45. ^ Mommsen, Hans, "The New Historical Consciousness and the Relativizing of National Socialism", pp. 114–124 from Forever In The Shadow of Hitler? ed. Piper (1993), pp. 114–115.
  46. ^ Evans, Richard, In Hitler's Shadow, New York: Pantheon Books, 1989, pp. 159–160.
  47. ^
    ISBN 978-0-226-79683-3
  48. ^ Thomassen, L. "Introduction: Between Deconstruction and Rational Reconstruction" in The Derrida-Habermas Reader, ed. Thomassen (2006), pp. 1–7. P.2.
  49. ^ Derrida, J., "Is There a Philosophical Language?" in The Derrida-Habermas Reader, ed. Thomassen (2006), pp. 35–45. P.37.
  50. ^ Habermas, J. and Derrida, J. "February 15, Or What Binds Europeans Together: A Plea for a Common Foreign Policy, beginning in the Core of Europe" in The Derrida-Habermas Reader, ed. Thomassen (2006), pp. 270–277. P. 302.
  51. ^ Sánchez, Rosalía. 2011. 'San' Jürgen Habermas. El Mundo. Access date: 10 January 2015
  52. ^ Habermas, Jurgen, Religion and Rationality: Essays on Reason, God, and Modernity, ed. Eduardo Mendieta, MIT Press, 2002, p. 149. And Habermas, Jurgen, Time of Transitions, Polity Press, 2006, pp. 150–151.
  53. ^ First Principles Journal– Recovering the Western Soul, Wilfred M. McClay (from IR 42:1, Spring 2007) – 01/01/09. Accessed: 2 December 2012.
  54. ^ Secularization and Cultural Criticism: Religion, Nation, and Modernity, Vincent P. Pecora..
  55. ^ "A misquote about Habermas and Christianity". habermas-rawls.blogspot.fi. 8 June 2009. Retrieved 28 October 2017.
  56. ^ Ambrose Ih-Ren Mong. Dialogue Derailed: Joseph Ratzinger's War against Pluralist Theology. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 279
  57. ^ A "post-secular" society – what does that mean? Archived 29 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine by Jurgen Habermas, June 2008.
  58. ^ Espinosa, Javier. "The religion in the public sphere. Habermas, Toland and Spinoza" (PDF). Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 January 2016.
  59. ISBN 978-1-58617-166-7
    . Retrieved 28 October 2017 – via Google Books.
  60. ^ Buston, Fernando del. 2014. El Estado debe proteger a la religión. El Comercio. Date access 10 January 2015: "Jürgen Habermas ha acuñado el término de postsecularidad.Se da por fallida la idea central de la modernidad de que la religión iba a desaparecer y se establece una nueva relación entre razón y religión. Habermas plantea que es necesario emprender un aprendizaje mutuo entre las sociedades modernas y las creencias, o entre razón secular y fe. Se inicia una nueva época de mutuas tolerancias. La razón no puede echar por la borda el potencial de sentido de las religiones y éstas deben traducir sus contenidos racionalmente."
  61. ^ Habermas, Jürgen (1987). Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2. Translated by Thomas, McCarthy. Beacon Press. p. 348.
  62. ^
    S2CID 265035687
    .
  63. ^ Jürgen Habermas, 'Bestialität und Humanität: Ein Krieg an der Grenze zwischen Recht und Moral', Die Zeit, 29 April 1999; in English as 'Bestiality and Humanity: A War on the Border between Law and Morality', in William Buckley (ed.), Kosovo: Contending Voices on the Balkan Intervention (2000).
  64. ^ Jürgen Habermas, "Letter to America", The Nation, 16 December 2002
  65. ^ Philip Oltermann, "Merkel 'gambling away' Germany's reputation over Greece, says Habermas", The Guardian (16 July 2015)
  66. ^ "VIKTOR FRANKL AWARD". 19 June 2017. Archived from the original on 19 June 2017.
  67. ^ "Georg-August-Zinn-Preis – SPD Hessen im Internet". Archived from the original on 24 October 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2012.
  68. ^ "The future of democracy, with Jürgen Habermas". KNAW. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
  69. ^ "German philosopher Habermas rejects UAE's Zayed Book Award". AP NEWS. 2 May 2021. Retrieved 2 May 2021.
  70. ^ SPIEGEL, Dietmar Pieper, DER (2 May 2021). "Jürgen Habermas und die emiratische Propaganda: Lässt sich der Starphilosoph vereinnahmen?". Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved 2 May 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  71. ^ "Jürgen Habermas turns down UAE award over human rights concerns". DW. 2 May 2021.
  72. ^ "Jürgen Habermas Awarded Inaugural Dialectic Medal" https://www.dialecticinstitute.org/medal/habermas.htm
  73. ^ "Habermas". ORDEN POUR LE MÉRITE (in German). Retrieved 11 June 2023.

Further reading

  • Gregg Daniel Miller, Mimesis and Reason: Habermas's Political Philosophy. SUNY Press, 2011.
A recent analysis which underscores the aesthetic power of intersubjective communication in Habermas's theory of communicative action.
A highly regarded interpretation in English of Habermas's earlier work, written just as Habermas was developing his full-fledged communication theory.
  • Raymond Geuss, The Idea of a Critical Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1981.
A clear account of Habermas's early philosophical views.
  • J.G. Finlayson, Habermas: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2004.
A recent, brief introduction to Habermas, focusing on his communication theory of society.
Discussing Habermas's legal philosophy in the 1992 original German edition of Between Facts and Norms.
  • Andreas Dorschel: 'Handlungstypen und Kriterien. Zu Habermas' Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, in: Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 44 (1990), nr. 2, pp. 220–252. A critical discussion of types of action in Habermas. In German.
  • Erik Oddvar Eriksen and Jarle Weigard, Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, Continuum International Publishing, 2004 (
    ISBN 0-8264-7179-X
    ).
A recent and comprehensive introduction to Habermas's mature theory and its political implications both national and global.

External links

Awards
Preceded by Theodor W. Adorno Award
1980 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Sonning Prize
1987 		Succeeded by
Preceded by
Princess of Asturias Award

for Social Sciences
2003 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy
2004 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Holberg Prize
2005 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Erasmus Prize
2013 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Kluge Prize
2015
With: Charles Taylor 		Succeeded by