This is way too cool... Habermas was a part of the Frankfurt School of critical theory and knew Adorno and Horkheimer... he's a living intellectual legend!
Vielen Dank, dass Sie dieses Interview auf Englisch geführt haben. Thanks for doing this interview in English, and opening it up to a wide global audience.
From Wikipedia: Habermas was born in Düsseldorf, Rhine Province, in 1929, to a middle class and rather traditional family. A cleft palate made it difficult for him to speak clearly and form social relationships, as he was often met with rejection. He received corrective surgery twice during childhood. Habermas argues that his speech disability made him think differently about the importance of communication and prefer writing over the spoken word as a medium.[
@iMac0906 He says, "I had the opportunity to grow up in post-war Germany within a generation of rather productive sociologists and philosophers. Then you see that I couldn't have, probably, written any book without being part of a generational discourse in my country, so that I can accept such a prize only if I think that it is also dedicated to a whole academic cohort and context, without which I wouldn't have become so well read."
Hebermas- perhaps one of the last major living champions of the grand narrative, and critical theory. He remains so important.The postmodern world must be reminded of the contribution of this great thinker, and the rest of the Frankfurt School's contribution to the dialogue of freedom
One of greatest philosophers of our epoch. Reading his works, The structural transformation of public sphere and Legitimation crisis. I feel any philosopher who can challenge Rawls head on is Jürgen Habermas and perhaps Hayek to an extent.
His speaking is just as difficult to understand as his writing. It's to the world's detriment that academics deliberately choose to write in the most difficult prose possible.
+Johannes Choo We actually have quite a bit of sociology - to better understand humans and their behavior/reactions and mechanisms that impact our lives.
I totally agree. That is why I like to write my papers as understandable as possible. Had a test about Habermas last year. I tried to read his book about modernity. But I couldn't understand it well enough. I was just sitting there looking at all the questions and I didnt know what any of them meant. I really studied hard for the test. I took .like a month during summer vacation to read the book but still. You really need to visit classes (which I didnt) in order to translate that stuff to normal language. Its just a technique I guess, and I think its combareble to what lawmakers do or salespeople, or doctors. They just want to keep their own privileges to themselves and protect their peer group. (thats my accusation). Its true, doctors should be experts. You dont want people who didnt study to cut you open or help you with medical problems, or protect you in court. But I think it would help society a lot if we would make this kind of info more accesible and understandable. There is just a lot of Discourse that doesnt make any sense in a moral and epistemological way.
Habermas deals with complex subjects. After you read it twice and grasp the structure of the things he wants to prove he becomes one of the most clear philosophers. Much easier to read than many.
@wizardn1 Apparently Habermas has (had) cleft palate, so don't blame him. And apparently that's why he doesn't enjoy appearing on television cameras. From my point of view he speaks very good and understandable English, even though his accent is German and there's some minor distortion you can hear in his pronunciation.
Beginning to read him properly for the first time, I am in love with his prose and the sensibleness inherent in his critiques of so-called subject-centred reason. My problem is in seeing 'communicative action' as anything more than an optimistic 'yes we can!' against post-structuralist nihilism. The tweaking of Weber's action theory is fine, but that related primarily to practical sociological method! Is 'communicative action' a "thing", or just our new euphemism for the enlightenment spirit?
Habermas' concern for communicative action is a way of centering the analysis of discourse on speech-act theory, and the formulation of an ethics of discourse under which free and fair deliberations can be engaged in by members of a community in a democratic society. Communicative action is a type of speech act that is geared toward reaching mutual understanding through dialogue. It can be seen as a contrast to speech which is used to gain advantage in some sort of external medium, like power or money. It's also the heart and soul of deliberative democracy among equal participants.
Habermas is a brilliant philosopher who studied how democracy is dying. The public sphere, which is the key area between authorities and private citizens, is shrinking, while the public expands. Habermas showed this in his "Transformation of the Public Sphere". So today we're not fully citizens, but consumers of attack ads, people to be manipulated by pollsters & pundits, etc. Unfortunately, he doesn't look like your standard TV pundit, but he's brilliant.
Although there are commands against him[J.Habermas], I do say hisworks helped me understand the public sphere and deliberative democracy in a really new perspective. This video is too short to reveal his depths, but the first question(second topic of this interview) has helped me to understand his main concerns. Thanks sharing! :) 對於民主以及審議民主的關懷，這點很不錯！ ：） Danke !
The system that 'works better than others' is not a transhistorically determined fact. There is no external metric by which one can make such a judgment--it is through the reciprocal recognitive processes of discourse that such an understand emerges. This is a roughly Hegelian point: If you look at the world rationally, it will look rationally back at you.
Hello Davidmeme! For authorization to use this video in Philosophy textbook for high school students, how can I get this authorization? Thank you so much.
"Works better" means makes more people happy, helps the state survive, actively responds to problems and grows. If you look at the inverse of the three, you could add tyranny (bad rule by one) oligarchy (bad rule by a minority) and anarchy (bad rule by a majority). But the six types are conceptual thinking aids; every real government is different. Habermas is respected by philosophers as a strong proponent of democracy.
If you *have* read his entire work, that is... 25 books, hundreds of journal papers, thousands of journalistic articles and other sorted articles then you are very well read and I am the first to concede that.
I consider the possibility that I may have misinterpreted Habermas' intentions. But he is not entertaining like Nietzsche, mystical like Heidegger, bold like Rousseau or fiery like Adorno. And these are all philosophers I disagree with! I find Aristotle's ramblings on ethics quite unfocused, but I recognize the usefulness of his theories, which is not the case with Habermas.
The Enlightenment ended with Habermas. A largely successful programme, it omitted the power of the non-rational. In communication & politics, much of what happens depends upon visual rhetoric & non-rational forms of meaning. Habermas's programme perpetuates hegemony. We can do better.
@suddenlyitsobvious Actually he does. His theory of communicativ action is made in the tradition of the critical theory of Ardono and Horkheimer. And as such it's central aim is to criticise society by comparing how it should be and how it realy is. And then to analyse the mechanisms that are preventing society from becoming what it is supposed to be. Is THAT any good?
I don't think there's such a thing as a "best social system" but rather some systems work better than others in specific historical times. And I think government is best when it has elements of each system (democracy = rule by majority; aristocracy = rule by few; monarchy = rule by one) inside it, so it can adapt. America's government is excellent but lacks an aristocratic element in foreign policy, in my view; the Roman Republic was better built.
هابرماس وجد صعوبة في التواصل مع الناس نظرا لمشكلة في فكه العلوي من المفارقة أنه أبدع فلسفة عبقرية تقوم على بناء نظام اجتماعي يرتكز على مبدأ التواصل بين الناس .
Citation please? I understand that they had a "historians quarrel" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit ... but that is more of an example of an intense debate rather than an argument for banning.
@atreideslegend Also, if I could say one more thing, Nietzsche's work isn't obscurant, it's refractory and inversely systematic. Nietzsche's tendency to contradict himself is an intentional demonstration of a radical new form of philosophy in which the supposed atom of subjectivity, the author, shatters the presumptuous cathexis of discourse, and the pieces go off in myriad directions. To read Nietzsche, the most important thing to pay attention to is methodology.
Estou de acordo com tua intervencao. Só gostaria de explicar-lhe o conceito de Esclarecimento, que nós, em portugues e espanhol chamamos de "ilustracao" ou "iluminismo". Em alemao "Aufklärung" significa Esclarecimento, também no sentido trivial de esclarecer qualquer problema ou circunstancia. "Klären" é clarear, "Aufklären" entao Esclarecer. Tornar algo claro, levar à luz. Iluminismo, ilustracao é para os alemaes "Esclarecimento". Já em Kant era assim. Um abraco.
I think if you give Habermas a closer look, do more readings you'll get more out of it. He's the second generation of the Frankfurt school and his approach to critical theory has had immense impact. Dismissing philosophers in the manner in which you are doing it premature. Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean they're useless.
@cirosuperiore -- Did you listen to what he said? And what do you expect philosophers to do, recite poetry? I agree that most of my textbooks are way overpriced and lacking useful information, but that's what attracts me to thinkers like Habermas. The point is that if we don't treat society, work, and school as a factory, but put more attention into daily actions then philosophers would be gladly out of a job because everyone is doing what they have spent millenia preaching about.
I think you're right on all counts. And overpopulation, as you suggest, hinders democracy. I think America had real democracy before 1776 in New England towns with rigorous debate, well-attended town meetings, open-minded discussion. Tocqueville blames "equality of conditions" for causing Americans to focus almost exclusively on pursuing wealth (and neglecting citizenship duties) so today hardly anybody participates in politics. America moves towards an oligarchy, in my view.
cause to talk and discuss about a philosophy or philosopher write an essay, talk from face to face, write letters but don't write like that on youtube. But maybe you have to rethink what philosophy means or start to think what philosophy means. And if somebody write: "What if 'normative ideals' are lies, manipulations, appeals to dead ideologies (eg. last days of Marxism) or even threats?".
Lenin's work is thought provoking, but mostly proved wrong by history. It doesn't make sense to compare democracy with aristocracy or monarchy, in my view, but find a system of government which has all three elements in it (like the Roman Republic). And I think capitalism and communism should alternate -- each system has its strengths -- but capitalism is more consistent with individual rights and freedom, while communism is the right system when the nation is at war, in my view.
Well, I don't think I agree. The meaning of the Hegel quote is just that the world is rational to the extent that you MAKE it rational. This is simply a turn on the Kantian notion of systematicity--for Hegel, the building blocks of that system can themselves change.
@jimbopumbapigsticks but the speech is slurred from a cleft palate. That sucks. The guy 's a professor, speaking for a living and his work is on clear communication (bad joke)
@atreideslegend ^Habermas actually makes that very observation in Modernism v Post-modernism. I think I found N's particular strain of reflexivity to be ineffective because his methodology struck me as unsystematic to begin with; too heavily laced with the pseudo-empiricism that was characteristic of pre-modernist discourse. The postmoderns (in Derrida, and more lucidly, Johnson) didn't have that problem so much, due to their criticisms being primarily semiotic and graphocentric.
I actually have better things to read right now, so I'm not going to risk wasting my time on Habermas thick books before I'm convinced that I need them. Biographies and summaries convinced me to read the constipated Adorno and the adulterous Marcuse, but not the boring and flat-faced but funny-looking Habermas. Except for Habermas, I don't remember having dismissed any philosopher. Dissing perhaps. Notice that I also praised the same philosophers I dissed.
@elliotswain Hmmmm maybe I should check those out, I've only read TSZ and BGE iirc and couldn't face any more, 'The Geneaology of Morals' sounds like it could perhaps be a fun alternative to the models in Totem and Taboo. Its interesting that you talk about methodology, I've read that much of the high post-modern criticism takes a lot from N in terms of reflexive enactment of argument (deconstruction being the obvious example), though I never really read that in N myself.
Much philosophy since Wittgenstein has moved to the turf of sociology.. so much so as to bankrupt the discipline of its own remit! Granted broader developments in pure philosophy gave rise to sociology in the first place, but credit where credits due. The major influences on Habermas' thought are Durkheim, Marx, Weber and Parsons.
i guess u are right , my bad. and i do understand what i read, but knowing other "north americans a la Bush" makes me very doubtful. But i think my comment was harsh, let me rephrase it: I know now of 2 americans who can read Habermas, Including Noam, who is a very talented and intelligent man. Peace
When exactly were the 'last days of Marxism'? As I am sure you realise Marxist-Lenism, Stalinism, State Capitalism, Maoism etc are *not* Marxism in any sense of following the writings of Marx. Mainly because they are state-centric whereas Marx postulated the abolition of the state. So, to be fair, we have never seen a Marxist state - perhaps we never will - but at least get your facts straight.
Marxism is economically bunk regardless how many hairs you split. Marxian(purely philosophical) would be the correct word,but what are the contents of Marxianism? If it's contents include the vague psychologizing known as the "theory of alienation" then you may seek to jump ship. Habermas is also the official philosopher of the EU,happy Brexit :)
Seems like some shallow analysis. What exactly does a system that "work[s] better than others" look like? By what metric are you evaluating or comparing systems? Moreover, there are far more than three systems of government. Though I understand that those three are popular in contemporary political discourse, it is unclear that the meanings you've assigned to each adequately represent each idea. For instance, democracy doesn't necessarily have to be majoritarian, egvalue theory of democracy.
I insulted the rest, didn't I, so I just had to come up with a reason to insult Spinoza, too. I was just trying to make Aristotle sound good in comparison and please you. Why are some people so hard to please?
We may not like his idealizm (of curse there is idealism in his theory it is normative for Gods Sake) but aren't human rights idealist? His theory lets us e. g. conceive of the tension between normative ideals of human rights and a particular democratic rule.
No it doesn't. Habermas describes a *counterfactual* by which we can understand and compare normative ideals of the public sphere. Remember that Habermas is a critical theorist - and in any case what on earth is reality.. Your reality?? Different cultures and societies have different ideals of reality - Habermas describes the enlightenment project of rationality as a counterfactual towards which we should re-align our polity if we wish to continue the enlightenment project.
@atreideslegend Read Nietzsche, particularly "The Gay Science" and "On the Geneaology of Morals," more carefully and return to your accusations of racism and sexism. Reading some key secondary materials should help you also to look under the surface of some of the material you might be deriding here. The book "Feminist Interpretations of Nietzsche" is also an excellent introduction to the radical idea of using not only Nietzsche's work on epistemology, but also on sex, for radical feminist aims.
Very interessting, to call one of the greatest philosophers of this century somebody "who wrote way too many books about a very obvious issue". He got his main book "Theorie des
Well to be fair I doubt you have read all his work if you're going to make a claim like that. For example, summing up even just the two volumes of Theories of Communicative Action in a sentence is unrealistic.
What do you mean by "Truth"? If you think that Habermas subscribes to the view that Truth has anything to do with correspondance then you couldn't be further formt the truth (lol). He speaks about communicatively established truth, and communicative rationality which are something totally different.
Very interessting, to call one of the greatest philosophers of this century somebody "who wrote way too many books about a very obvious issue". He got his main book "Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns" and many books after this theory was only the answer to detractors.
@RunningFromthe80s Who is the ignoramus then? If you had half a brain, and that part was half educated, you might then be in a position to make an intelligent comment. Until then, don't embarrass yourself by making stupid comments about things you have no idea about. Anyone who knows what Habermas is talking about appreciates his work.
What he told here was superficial. May be in his books he digs to some deeper ideas. However I think the best work about what democracy ansd the state (teh capitalist state) really is, can be only found in the book "STATE and REVOLUTION" (Staat und Revolution) of Lenin. This the frist time in my life gave me the real understanding of "our demock racy" .
Well, excuse me if I fail to appreciate every philosopher you mentioned. At least Aristotle wasn't cartoonish like Nietzsche, pointless like Heidegger, childish like Rousseau or constipated like Adorno. I don't even wanna know who Spinoza is, but I doubt he's even a real philosopher.
@cirosuperiore lol Yeah, I remember Between Facts and Norms was on the NY Times bestseller list for 18 months, it was such a page-turner. Seriously, how many books do you imagine big-name philosophers sell? Rawls was the only one to make serious cash from it.
kommunikativen Handelns" and many books after this theory was only the answer to detractors. Tell me one person who thought or talked about the "Diskursethik", the idea of "Rationalität" in this dimension. If you argue like that, than what does philosophy do since "the greecs"? Nothing new. It`s stupid to talk like that and I`m stupid to write a comment,
@atreideslegend reading Nietz from a rationalist point of view is your first mistake. but i'm not here to explain FN. you have to do that on your own...
@jimbopumbapigsticks John Rawls, is also a great disappointment, just repeating what JS Mill said a century ago, with a little marxism thrown in. but nothing is more ridiculous than habermas power-free communication: making Nietzsche turn in his grave
Fair enough, his writing is difficult and tedious, but then again so is most of Philosophy. I'm not sure why you insult philosophers personally, rather than critique their views. Habermas' facial structure really has nothing to do with his thought.. and I think he had a stroke recently, although I'm not sure. You dissed and dismissed Spinoza, without actually know anything about him. Seems kinda premature. You should make fun of Kant for dying a virgin. There's some good material.
Words of Praise for a Critical Threorist whose Praisers neither apply scholarly Analysis & Criticism to the Praised Originator of Critical Theory himselfxnor do they explicate the main phiosophical Aspect they admire and why they find that Aspect better than - say - some Greek or sone French Peer- some Anglo-Sachson Peer or some American Peer; some Indian or some Chinese or some Egyptian Peer - provided of course they know and jnderstabd the other's Views and Theories concerning that Aspect. Perhaps I should have said Co-Philosopher rather than Peer since the former includes also the Deceased. "New Ideas and Trends need not be better than the Ob not ", as we recognize in the UKW Radio Band of Göttingen as far as Pop Music with much Drums and horrible Voices and Texts: Beispiel : "Du bist Hochdynamit" [AlfredvNobel gemeint oder Betonbau - Sprengung oder was?] & "I'm in Love with your Body" [und wenn der Body defekt oder gealtert ist oder etwas Schöneres auftaucht, dann nicht mehr?] I deduce from all that: 1 - "The Praisers in terms oxtravagant Excitememt - from whom I was not different back then - must be young People." 2 - Love of Body merely is no genuine Love. It is no Love at all.I is!even anti-podal to the Meaning of Love in the Sciptures 49 1525 191 4562 Tarek Hussein Azzam
This is way too cool... Habermas was a part of the Frankfurt School of critical theory and knew Adorno and Horkheimer... he's a living intellectual legend!
He wasn't on good terms with Horkheimer though.
@@R0DisG0D what happened?
@@metatron4890 I think Horkheimer didnt want to give him a habilitation
@@metatron4890 habermas philosophy it's aganist ftankfurt school
@@OnCrime66 While being indebted to it.
Vielen Dank, dass Sie dieses Interview auf Englisch geführt haben.
Thanks for doing this interview in English, and opening it up to a wide global audience.
From Wikipedia: Habermas was born in Düsseldorf, Rhine Province, in 1929, to a middle class and rather traditional family. A cleft palate made it difficult for him to speak clearly and form social relationships, as he was often met with rejection. He received corrective surgery twice during childhood. Habermas argues that his speech disability made him think differently about the importance of communication and prefer writing over the spoken word as a medium.[
a fucking genius
His positivity is contagious. Much respect
@iMac0906 He says, "I had the opportunity to grow up in post-war Germany within a generation of rather productive sociologists and philosophers. Then you see that I couldn't have, probably, written any book without being part of a generational discourse in my country, so that I can accept such a prize only if I think that it is also dedicated to a whole academic cohort and context, without which I wouldn't have become so well read."
Hebermas- perhaps one of the last major living champions of the grand narrative, and critical theory. He remains so important.The postmodern world must be reminded of the contribution of this great thinker, and the rest of the Frankfurt School's contribution to the dialogue of freedom
One of greatest philosophers of our epoch. Reading his works, The structural transformation of public sphere and Legitimation crisis. I feel any philosopher who can challenge Rawls head on is Jürgen Habermas and perhaps Hayek to an extent.
Hayek? That neoliberal Economist is like the opposit to Rawls and Habermas
Great stuff, thanks for sharing this! Now I find him difficult to understand in more than one way. This man is a genious.
This could really use subtitles.
I think he looks pretty cool, myself.
His speaking is just as difficult to understand as his writing. It's to the world's detriment that academics deliberately choose to write in the most difficult prose possible.
Agreed! We have to read his theory in nursing school and it's bloody killing me
+Tamaswini How do his theories apply to nursing?
+Johannes Choo We actually have quite a bit of sociology - to better understand humans and their behavior/reactions and mechanisms that impact our lives.
I totally agree. That is why I like to write my papers as understandable as possible. Had a test about Habermas last year. I tried to read his book about modernity. But I couldn't understand it well enough. I was just sitting there looking at all the questions and I didnt know what any of them meant. I really studied hard for the test. I took .like a month during summer vacation to read the book but still. You really need to visit classes (which I didnt) in order to translate that stuff to normal language. Its just a technique I guess, and I think its combareble to what lawmakers do or salespeople, or doctors. They just want to keep their own privileges to themselves and protect their peer group. (thats my accusation). Its true, doctors should be experts. You dont want people who didnt study to cut you open or help you with medical problems, or protect you in court. But I think it would help society a lot if we would make this kind of info more accesible and understandable. There is just a lot of Discourse that doesnt make any sense in a moral and epistemological way.
Habermas deals with complex subjects. After you read it twice and grasp the structure of the things he wants to prove he becomes one of
the most clear philosophers. Much easier to read than many.
@wizardn1
Apparently Habermas has (had) cleft palate, so don't blame him. And apparently that's why he doesn't enjoy appearing on television cameras. From my point of view he speaks very good and understandable English, even though his accent is German and there's some minor distortion you can hear in his pronunciation.
Beginning to read him properly for the first time, I am in love with his prose and the sensibleness inherent in his critiques of so-called subject-centred reason. My problem is in seeing 'communicative action' as anything more than an optimistic 'yes we can!' against post-structuralist nihilism. The tweaking of Weber's action theory is fine, but that related primarily to practical sociological method! Is 'communicative action' a "thing", or just our new euphemism for the enlightenment spirit?
Habermas' concern for communicative action is a way of centering the analysis of discourse on speech-act theory, and the formulation of an ethics of discourse under which free and fair deliberations can be engaged in by members of a community in a democratic society. Communicative action is a type of speech act that is geared toward reaching mutual understanding through dialogue. It can be seen as a contrast to speech which is used to gain advantage in some sort of external medium, like power or money. It's also the heart and soul of deliberative democracy among equal participants.
seria genial si alguien pudiera subtitularlo al español u otros idiomas, para poder opinar.
Gracias
I love the accent of the interviewer. I think it should have subtitles also.
Habermas is a brilliant philosopher who studied how democracy is dying. The public sphere, which is the key area between authorities and private citizens, is shrinking, while the public expands. Habermas showed this in his "Transformation of the Public Sphere". So today we're not fully citizens, but consumers of attack ads, people to be manipulated by pollsters & pundits, etc. Unfortunately, he doesn't look like your standard TV pundit, but he's brilliant.
Although there are commands against him[J.Habermas], I do say hisworks helped me understand the public sphere and deliberative democracy in a really new perspective. This video is too short to reveal his depths, but the first question(second topic of this interview) has helped me to understand his main concerns. Thanks sharing! :)
對於民主以及審議民主的關懷，這點很不錯！ ：）
Danke !
The system that 'works better than others' is not a transhistorically determined fact. There is no external metric by which one can make such a judgment--it is through the reciprocal recognitive processes of discourse that such an understand emerges.
This is a roughly Hegelian point: If you look at the world rationally, it will look rationally back at you.
Hello Davidmeme!
For authorization to use this video in Philosophy textbook for high school students, how can I get this authorization?
Thank you so much.
well... I think democratic public life only thrives where institutions enable citizens to debate matters of public importance...
"Works better" means makes more people happy, helps the state survive, actively responds to problems and grows. If you look at the inverse of the three, you could add tyranny (bad rule by one) oligarchy (bad rule by a minority) and anarchy (bad rule by a majority). But the six types are conceptual thinking aids; every real government is different. Habermas is respected by philosophers as a strong proponent of democracy.
I don't know about you but for me his works make a lot of sense and put a lot of things into perspective.
If you *have* read his entire work, that is... 25 books, hundreds of journal papers, thousands of journalistic articles and other sorted articles then you are very well read and I am the first to concede that.
I consider the possibility that I may have misinterpreted Habermas' intentions. But he is not entertaining like Nietzsche, mystical like Heidegger, bold like Rousseau or fiery like Adorno. And these are all philosophers I disagree with! I find Aristotle's ramblings on ethics quite unfocused, but I recognize the usefulness of his theories, which is not the case with Habermas.
The Enlightenment ended with Habermas.
A largely successful programme, it omitted the power of the non-rational. In communication & politics, much of what happens depends upon visual rhetoric & non-rational forms of meaning. Habermas's programme perpetuates hegemony.
We can do better.
@S2Cents Nah, he's got a cleft palate.
ハバーマスの声、表情、はじめてみました。ある種感慨を覚えます。Up主ありがとう。といっても、ちょっと見たところ日本人いらっしゃらないようですが。。。
Yes he is ( have a look at wikipedia. he is listed in the category " atheist philosophers" and " german atheists" ) hope that helps :-)
very nice video, thanks
Legend
@suddenlyitsobvious Actually he does. His theory of communicativ action is made in the tradition of the critical theory of Ardono and Horkheimer. And as such it's central aim is to criticise society by comparing how it should be and how it realy is. And then to analyse the mechanisms that are preventing society from becoming what it is supposed to be. Is THAT any good?
East-West dichotomy got over 150,000 views combined already.
I don't think there's such a thing as a "best social system" but rather some systems work better than others in specific historical times. And I think government is best when it has elements of each system (democracy = rule by majority; aristocracy = rule by few; monarchy = rule by one) inside it, so it can adapt. America's government is excellent but lacks an aristocratic element in foreign policy, in my view; the Roman Republic was better built.
some of us are capable and interested. ;-)
peace.
Thank you.
هابرماس وجد صعوبة في التواصل مع الناس نظرا لمشكلة في فكه العلوي من المفارقة أنه أبدع فلسفة عبقرية تقوم على بناء نظام اجتماعي يرتكز على مبدأ التواصل بين الناس .
Alguién puede traducir al español, ¿por favor?
Gracias.
he argued of banning other historians, like Ernst Nolte. Why is that? What good does censorship do?
Citation please? I understand that they had a "historians quarrel"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historikerstreit
... but that is more of an example of an intense debate rather than an argument for banning.
@atreideslegend Also, if I could say one more thing, Nietzsche's work isn't obscurant, it's refractory and inversely systematic. Nietzsche's tendency to contradict himself is an intentional demonstration of a radical new form of philosophy in which the supposed atom of subjectivity, the author, shatters the presumptuous cathexis of discourse, and the pieces go off in myriad directions. To read Nietzsche, the most important thing to pay attention to is methodology.
Estou de acordo com tua intervencao. Só gostaria de explicar-lhe o conceito de Esclarecimento, que nós, em portugues e espanhol chamamos de "ilustracao" ou "iluminismo". Em alemao "Aufklärung" significa Esclarecimento, também no sentido trivial de esclarecer qualquer problema ou circunstancia. "Klären" é clarear, "Aufklären" entao Esclarecer. Tornar algo claro, levar à luz. Iluminismo, ilustracao é para os alemaes "Esclarecimento". Já em Kant era assim. Um abraco.
Its a cleft palate.
I think if you give Habermas a closer look, do more readings you'll get more out of it. He's the second generation of the Frankfurt school and his approach to critical theory has had immense impact.
Dismissing philosophers in the manner in which you are doing it premature. Just because you don't understand them, doesn't mean they're useless.
@cirosuperiore -- Did you listen to what he said? And what do you expect philosophers to do, recite poetry? I agree that most of my textbooks are way overpriced and lacking useful information, but that's what attracts me to thinkers like Habermas. The point is that if we don't treat society, work, and school as a factory, but put more attention into daily actions then philosophers would be gladly out of a job because everyone is doing what they have spent millenia preaching about.
I think you're right on all counts. And overpopulation, as you suggest, hinders democracy. I think America had real democracy before 1776 in New England towns with rigorous debate, well-attended town meetings, open-minded discussion. Tocqueville blames "equality of conditions" for causing Americans to focus almost exclusively on pursuing wealth (and neglecting citizenship duties) so today hardly anybody participates in politics. America moves towards an oligarchy, in my view.
@tomsega You forgot Schmitt, even though he inverted what he said about the public sphere.
You hate what you can not understand.
when I try to play it, it's only two seconds.. weird.
cause to talk and discuss about a philosophy or philosopher write an essay, talk from face to face, write letters but don't write like that on youtube. But maybe you have to rethink what philosophy means or start to think what philosophy means. And if somebody write: "What if 'normative ideals' are lies, manipulations, appeals to dead ideologies (eg. last days of Marxism) or even threats?".
I love you too.
Lenin's work is thought provoking, but mostly proved wrong by history. It doesn't make sense to compare democracy with aristocracy or monarchy, in my view, but find a system of government which has all three elements in it (like the Roman Republic). And I think capitalism and communism should alternate -- each system has its strengths -- but capitalism is more consistent with individual rights and freedom, while communism is the right system when the nation is at war, in my view.
great video thanks
Well, I don't think I agree. The meaning of the Hegel quote is just that the world is rational to the extent that you MAKE it rational.
This is simply a turn on the Kantian notion of systematicity--for Hegel, the building blocks of that system can themselves change.
@jimbopumbapigsticks but the speech is slurred from a cleft palate. That sucks. The guy 's a professor, speaking for a living and his work is on clear communication (bad joke)
@atreideslegend ^Habermas actually makes that very observation in Modernism v Post-modernism. I think I found N's particular strain of reflexivity to be ineffective because his methodology struck me as unsystematic to begin with; too heavily laced with the pseudo-empiricism that was characteristic of pre-modernist discourse. The postmoderns (in Derrida, and more lucidly, Johnson) didn't have that problem so much, due to their criticisms being primarily semiotic and graphocentric.
I actually have better things to read right now, so I'm not going to risk wasting my time on Habermas thick books before I'm convinced that I need them. Biographies and summaries convinced me to read the constipated Adorno and the adulterous Marcuse, but not the boring and flat-faced but funny-looking Habermas.
Except for Habermas, I don't remember having dismissed any philosopher. Dissing perhaps. Notice that I also praised the same philosophers I dissed.
@elliotswain Hmmmm maybe I should check those out, I've only read TSZ and BGE iirc and couldn't face any more, 'The Geneaology of Morals' sounds like it could perhaps be a fun alternative to the models in Totem and Taboo. Its interesting that you talk about methodology, I've read that much of the high post-modern criticism takes a lot from N in terms of reflexive enactment of argument (deconstruction being the obvious example), though I never really read that in N myself.
Much philosophy since Wittgenstein has moved to the turf of sociology.. so much so as to bankrupt the discipline of its own remit! Granted broader developments in pure philosophy gave rise to sociology in the first place, but credit where credits due. The major influences on Habermas' thought are Durkheim, Marx, Weber and Parsons.
i guess u are right , my bad.
and i do understand what i read, but knowing other "north americans a la Bush" makes me very doubtful.
But i think my comment was harsh, let me rephrase it:
I know now of 2 americans who can read Habermas, Including Noam, who is a very talented and intelligent man.
Peace
that is nonsense renjie, he is a brilliant philosopher. OMG, someone is wrong on the internet
@S2Cents Yeah, there's a joke about pragmatism, Rorty and ironism in there somewhere.
am i the only one who is missing subtitles?
When exactly were the 'last days of Marxism'?
As I am sure you realise Marxist-Lenism, Stalinism, State Capitalism, Maoism etc are *not* Marxism in any sense of following the writings of Marx. Mainly because they are state-centric whereas Marx postulated the abolition of the state. So, to be fair, we have never seen a Marxist state - perhaps we never will - but at least get your facts straight.
Marxism is economically bunk regardless how many hairs you split. Marxian(purely philosophical) would be the correct word,but what are the contents of Marxianism? If it's contents include the vague psychologizing known as the "theory of alienation" then you may seek to jump ship. Habermas is also the official philosopher of the EU,happy Brexit :)
Is that video complete?
Seems like some shallow analysis. What exactly does a system that "work[s] better than others" look like? By what metric are you evaluating or comparing systems?
Moreover, there are far more than three systems of government. Though I understand that those three are popular in contemporary political discourse, it is unclear that the meanings you've assigned to each adequately represent each idea. For instance, democracy doesn't necessarily have to be majoritarian, egvalue theory of democracy.
Democracy is important theme
I insulted the rest, didn't I, so I just had to come up with a reason to insult Spinoza, too. I was just trying to make Aristotle sound good in comparison and please you. Why are some people so hard to please?
Commucative action theory a great thingking
We may not like his idealizm (of curse there is idealism in his theory it is normative for Gods Sake) but aren't human rights idealist? His theory lets us e. g. conceive of the tension between normative ideals of human rights and a particular democratic rule.
No it doesn't. Habermas describes a *counterfactual* by which we can understand and compare normative ideals of the public sphere. Remember that Habermas is a critical theorist - and in any case what on earth is reality.. Your reality?? Different cultures and societies have different ideals of reality - Habermas describes the enlightenment project of rationality as a counterfactual towards which we should re-align our polity if we wish to continue the enlightenment project.
@suddenlyitsobvious And the conclusion would be?
good work here
He was a big mma fighter in the 1950´s! that´s why hes face is so pretty fucked.
@atreideslegend Read Nietzsche, particularly "The Gay Science" and "On the Geneaology of Morals," more carefully and return to your accusations of racism and sexism. Reading some key secondary materials should help you also to look under the surface of some of the material you might be deriding here. The book "Feminist Interpretations of Nietzsche" is also an excellent introduction to the radical idea of using not only Nietzsche's work on epistemology, but also on sex, for radical feminist aims.
a great find! thanks
heh, forgot my credits to the 'supplier'。 ：）
哈哈，忘了該貢獻給提供者的點數！
@Patriol666 what does "de Schwaetzer" means?
Very interessting, to call one of the greatest philosophers of this century somebody "who wrote way too many books about a very obvious issue". He got his main book "Theorie des
DAMN
Well to be fair I doubt you have read all his work if you're going to make a claim like that. For example, summing up even just the two volumes of Theories of Communicative Action in a sentence is unrealistic.
What do you mean by "Truth"? If you think that Habermas subscribes to the view that Truth has anything to do with correspondance then you couldn't be further formt the truth (lol). He speaks about communicatively established truth, and communicative rationality which are something totally different.
Very interessting, to call one of the greatest philosophers of this century somebody "who wrote way too many books about a very obvious issue". He got his main book "Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns" and many books after this theory was only the answer to detractors.
@RunningFromthe80s Who is the ignoramus then? If you had half a brain, and that part was half educated, you might then be in a position to make an intelligent comment. Until then, don't embarrass yourself by making stupid comments about things you have no idea about. Anyone who knows what Habermas is talking about appreciates his work.
Habermas rocks....
I am sorry to say but I do not undersdand what he is saying in any language he speaks;/
What he told here was superficial. May be in his books he digs to some deeper ideas. However I think the best work about what democracy ansd the state (teh capitalist state) really is, can be only found in the book "STATE and REVOLUTION" (Staat und Revolution) of Lenin. This the frist time in my life gave me the real understanding of "our demock racy" .
@GammarMoses I could really use your help.!
Well, excuse me if I fail to appreciate every philosopher you mentioned. At least Aristotle wasn't cartoonish like Nietzsche, pointless like Heidegger, childish like Rousseau or constipated like Adorno. I don't even wanna know who Spinoza is, but I doubt he's even a real philosopher.
@cirosuperiore lol Yeah, I remember Between Facts and Norms was on the NY Times bestseller list for 18 months, it was such a page-turner. Seriously, how many books do you imagine big-name philosophers sell? Rawls was the only one to make serious cash from it.
I look forward to reading your superior original books on cultural critique. ;-)
peace.
Johnny Handsome
what was the date of this interview?
@Mc00Will
Je fais un cours de bas de sociologie en ce moment, et je suis heureux l'ayant trouvé. J'ai hâte d'en lire plus !
kommunikativen Handelns" and many books after this theory was only the answer to detractors. Tell me one person who thought or talked about the "Diskursethik", the idea of "Rationalität" in this dimension. If you argue like that, than what does philosophy do since "the greecs"? Nothing new. It`s stupid to talk like that and I`m stupid to write a comment,
@atreideslegend reading Nietz from a rationalist point of view is your first mistake. but i'm not here to explain FN. you have to do that on your own...
@jimbopumbapigsticks John Rawls, is also a great disappointment, just repeating what JS Mill said a century ago, with a little marxism thrown in.
but nothing is more ridiculous than habermas power-free communication: making Nietzsche turn in his grave
he has Cleft palate ... why they fuck are joking about it?
Fair enough, his writing is difficult and tedious, but then again so is most of Philosophy.
I'm not sure why you insult philosophers personally, rather than critique their views. Habermas' facial structure really has nothing to do with his thought.. and I think he had a stroke recently, although I'm not sure.
You dissed and dismissed Spinoza, without actually know anything about him. Seems kinda premature.
You should make fun of Kant for dying a virgin. There's some good material.
Words of Praise for a Critical Threorist whose Praisers neither apply scholarly Analysis & Criticism
to the Praised Originator of Critical Theory himselfxnor do they explicate
the main phiosophical Aspect they admire and why they find that Aspect better than - say - some Greek or sone French Peer- some Anglo-Sachson Peer or some American Peer; some Indian or some Chinese or some Egyptian Peer - provided of course they know and jnderstabd the other's Views and Theories concerning that Aspect. Perhaps I should have said Co-Philosopher rather than Peer since the former includes also the Deceased. "New Ideas and Trends need not be better than the Ob not ", as we recognize in the UKW Radio Band of Göttingen as far as Pop Music with much Drums and horrible Voices and Texts: Beispiel : "Du bist Hochdynamit" [AlfredvNobel gemeint oder Betonbau - Sprengung oder was?] & "I'm in Love with your Body" [und wenn der Body defekt oder gealtert ist oder etwas Schöneres auftaucht, dann nicht mehr?] I deduce from all that:
1 - "The Praisers in terms oxtravagant Excitememt - from whom I was not different back then - must be young People."
2 - Love of Body merely is no genuine Love. It is no Love at all.I is!even anti-podal to the Meaning of
Love in the Sciptures
49 1525 191 4562
Tarek Hussein Azzam
im doing a report later on his theory of communicative action. hope i pass 😂
@cirosuperiore Or make any kind of argument apparently.
Oh and btw 'rational' /= 'rationalist', try the dictionary.