Abstract Thispaper examines JurgenHabermas' attitude towards modernity. It is evident that it is characterized by his emphasis on the importance of rational communication. Habermas judged modernity by objectively evaluating its strengths and weaknesses through rational debate. The paper shows that in his view, the demise of modernity demonstrated that when rational debate is cast aside in favor of a rigid reliance upon a particular sociological theory, that theory will ultimately be discredited. In other words, sociological theories like modernism cannot replace rational thinking, they must reflect rational thinking.
Abstract This paper explains that JurgenHabermas, in his theory of knowledge as social theory, elaborates on the important relationship between the natural sciences and the science of man with knowledge as its bridge. The author points out that this theory elicits the sense of reading Marxist social and economic theories, alternating with Hegelian concepts of dialectics. The paper relates that the theory of discourse ethics, which can be divided into categories of cognitivism, justice vs. good and universalization, is an exacting form of argumentation because it ensures the participation of all sides will not be threatened by coercion, save for the soundness and force of the argument.
Table of Contents:
Habermas' Theory of Knowledge as Social Theory
Discussion
Critique
Habermas' Discourse Ethics
Discussion
Critique
From the Paper "On the other hand, the theory of relativity by Einstein will only remain up in the air if it were not tested by the discovery of nuclear fusion and fission, which in turn created nuclear reactors for electricity and its evil counterpart - the nuclear bombs of every kind and size threatening the world with annihilation. This then verifies Habermas' assertions on control of the natural processes being an instrument of control of social life processes. For the longest time since the Atom Bomb, the world has been shrieking in fear at the thought of a nuclear war between superpowers, especially during the Cold War."
Abstract This paper provides a brief overview and discussion of the debate between John Rawls and JurgenHabermas. The writer describes the context of the debate and the problem that sparked it, and explains key elements of Rawls' theory, Habermas's criticism of Rawls, and key elements of Habermas' theory. Some of their significant differences are explored, as, for example, where Rawls universalizes the principles of public reason (overlapping consensus), Habermas universalizes the principles of rational discourse (ethics of discourse). The writer contends that both theories are significant for theological ethics, since both strive to reach some sort of agreement leading to fairness and equality of people of distinct comprehensive doctrine.
From the Paper "The main problem that is before us is one of a reassessment of the foundations of modernity. The two world wars which caused unparalleled numbers of deaths and, in particular that of WWII with its unprecedented atrocities and crimes against humanity, seem to provide evidence or proof for something that could be in put in place to prevent wars that could no longer solely be blamed on religion or class struggles. The fundamental question at stake was whether the great confidence in reason and science (technology) has been perhaps overemphasized and was not a reliable means to ensure a peaceful existence for humanity amongst our vast differences. Both Rawls and Habermas are looking at the same problem and both start at the same point, namely the incompatibility of different comprehensive doctrines."
Tags: God dynamics philosophy pluralism theology, democratic society
Abstract This paper will discuss the reasons why public speaking by government representatives and business interest are playing a part in breaking down the democratic nature of United States government. By realizing that there are more secret interests, such as business groups and political factions, we can see how the public speaking modem is being transformed into a regime for self-interests, rather one for the people of the country. JurgenHabermas and Carl Schmitt's opinions on the subject will revealed here to illuminate this point.
Compares Habermas's communicative reason and Locke's social contract, roles of reason and definition of knowledge and the individual vs. social concerns.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 2 sources, 1999, $ 63.95
Abstract This study will explain and compare JurgenHabermas's philosophy of communicative reason and John Locke's concept of the social contract, focusing on the roles of reason and the definitions of knowledge in both philosophies. The study will argue that Habermas is concerned with the process whereby communicative reason takes place between individuals, while Locke is concerned with developing a rationale for the construction and continuity of a society in which completely free individuals (in the state of nature) agree to form a society which relieves them of some of that freedom but gives them in return protection for their life and property.
From the Paper "This study will explain and compare Jurgen Habermas's philosophy of communicative reason and John Locke's concept of the social contract, focusing on the roles of reason and the definitions of knowledge in both philosophies. The study will argue that Habermas is concerned with the process whereby communicative reason takes place between individuals, while Locke is concerned with developing a rationale for the construction and continuity of a society in which completely free individuals (in the state of nature) agree to form a society which relieves them of some of that freedom but gives them in return protection for their life and property. Habermas presupposes an orderly but free society is which his communicative reason can take place, whereas Locke presupposes a state of nature--part free, part rational, part warring--which necessitates the social contract which, in ..."
Abstract Although JurgenHabermas functioned primarily within the context of the Critical School, he developed his own analysis and critique of several systems of thought, such as Marxism, advanced or late capitalism, and the liberal-democratic society. This paper will discuss the historical context and theoretical orientation of his arguments, as well as the central concepts and primary conclusions of his analysis.
Abstract This six-page junior level paper is about the explication and evaluation of the critical reconstruction that JurgenHabermas carries out in "Knowledge and Human Interests". JurgenHabermas is the leading scholar of the second generation of the Frankfurt School, a group of philosophers, cultural critics and social scientists associated with the Institute for Social Research, founded in Frankfurt in 1929. The Frankfurt School is best known for its program of developing a "critical theory of society".
Abstract The paper reports that Joseph Schumpeter talked about democracy as elite selection. The author points out that Robert Dahl was a staunch defender of democracy, seeing it as a process that needed to be extended into every area of society including the economic and political spheres. The paper explains that JurgenHabermas argued that real democracy was not simply just the compilation of views about majority rules but a social process in which people met, had dialogue and tried to reach agreement.
An analysis of the way in which the Frankfurt School viewed the sociology of culture and a discussion of JurgenHabermas' "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society."
Abstract This paper reviews the key texts of the Frankfurt School on the sociology of culture. It also discusses JurgenHabermas' writings on the subject, particularly in "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society." Finally, it discusses the works of French critical theorists such as Guy Debord, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, and Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari and examines the ways in which the Frankfurt School impacted their thought.
From the Paper "The French radical philosophers and sociologists built upon the foundation laid by the Frankfurt School in developing their own critique of culture. They extended the Frankfurt School theorists' attack on mass culture, liberal tolerance, and the decay of the public sphere to include such key areas a language, discourse, and the psyche. Thus, it can be said that the French theorists were much more interested in the ways in which culture played out on the semiotic or symbolic level. Debord's Society of the Spectacle articulated the fact that no true social interactions could take place, as all interactions are now mediated. Foucault introduced the notion of discourse as a tool for maintaining power-as-knowledge via specialization in the professional realm. In a similar vein, Bourdieu's analysis of language was meant to show us "our place" in the social sphere. He connected language with what he deemed "symbolic capital"; just as Foucault linked knowledge with currency, Bourdieu would assert that those in possession of "symbolic capital" were the same who possessed enough power to perform acts of "symbolic violence" against those with less symbolic capital. But the greatest destabilization would come from Deleuze and Guattari, who would reject the Freudian-Marxist axis upon which the Frankfurt School theory had developed altogether in favor of a whole new freedom that would be based on the libidinal flow of desire."
Abstract This paper provides an overview and discussion of Charles Taylor's argument in "Malaise of Modernity." The writer discusses the context of Taylor's argument, the problem Taylor addresses, its relation to the Rawls-Habermas debate, Taylor's method, key elements of his argument and its importance for theological ethics. Taylor identifies three different types of malaises in modern society, and individualism as the chief of these three. The writer then explains the differences and similarities between Taylor's approach and that of Rawls and Habermas, and that Taylor's insights and arguments demonstrate a method in which all traditions can utilize something inherent within themselves that in turn points beyond themselves to come to consensus. This will aid all humans to understand others of differing traditions better and live harmoniously with one another.
From the Paper "The main difficulty with individualism is that it is being lived out in western society in the form of a "soft" relativism that in fact does not recognize any sort of moral ideal and thereby complete ignores or fails to recognize the moral ideal of authenticity. Relativism itself does have a moral ideal but any discussion of a moral is prevented by appealing to relativism. This appeal to relativism trivializes everyone's positions and renders them all effete and meaningless. To take such a position is to invalidate your own position and to hold the concept of relativism up as the moral ideal. When this is lived out in a liberal society all traditions are viewed as neutral with respect to the public sphere and this in turn relegates any discussion of moral ideals to the private domain."
Abstract This paper presents the theory of theological ethics of Bernard Lonergan. It includes his theory in relation to the John Rawls-JurgenHabermas debate and the arguments presented by Charles Taylor in "The Malaise of Modernity". The paper also evaluates his theory in light of developments in theological ethics today.
From the Paper "Much of Lonergan's work concerns that of how Christians do good things in the world. He realized that theology had been for a long time disconnected from other disciplines. He pondered what could unify it to many of these disparate disciplines (economics, the natural sciences, history, psychology, etc...)? He realizes that all of us when we are doing something no matter what we are doing or whether we realize it or not, we are essentially understanding. Lonergan particularly focuses on the act of insight. He discovered this through studying Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Amidst studying the works of Aquinas, Lonergan, becomes vividly aware of his own acts of understanding. He came upon these insights and realizations not solely through reading Aquinas but by doing what Aquinas did, namely, that of understanding. In a sense, Lonergan attempted to emulate Aquinas' methodology of coming to understanding. "
Abstract This paper examines the study of general and universal aspects of language with specific reference to Jorgen Habermas? rules for using and understanding language rationally. The goal of universal pragmatics is to identify and reconstruct conditions of possible understanding. The advantages and disadvantages of Habermas? "Universal Pragmatics" are discussed. It is of the writer's opinion that Habermas' emphasis on systematization and organization at times forces linguistic phenomena into pre-established categories, which leaves little room for nuances, details or humanly necessary embellishments.
From the Paper "This concept when adequately applied extends across the boundaries of culture and language, e.g. two Englishmen would use the same formulations to communicate in English, as would two Frenchmen"in French.? In this seminal work, in the book, ?Communication and Evolution of Society,? Habermas provides a simple construct for ideal communication (Habermas 1979). Throughout "What is Universal Pragmatics"? he maintains that all the complexities of sentence structures and their utterances are successfully communicated if an original intent is adhered to. Habermas maintains, that each form of communication, direct and otherwise, is to reach understanding. Such a pure communication is only possible if it is conducted"in a nutshell"clearly and honestly.?
Abstract This twelve-page graduate paper discusses how Habermas's theory could be useful to feminism. Habermas's theory plays a balancing act in feminism. It neither accepts the radical nature of those who use feminism to complain of repression. Nor does it dismiss feminism. Habermas has played a useful role in reminding people of the basis of feminism, and the need for universalism, equality and tolerance. His theory has influenced many in the struggle for justice.
Abstract "Hans Jurgen Eysenck (1916-97) was a German-born, British-educated psychologist whose principal contributions to psychological theory were his trait theory of personality, his biological theory of temperamental differences, his extensive investigations into the nature of intelligence, and his extension of his personality theory into some areas of social behavior.
From the Paper "Hans Jurgen Eysenck (1916-97) was a German-born, British-educated psychologist whose principal contributions to psychological theory were his trait theory of personality, his biological theory of temperamental differences, his extensive investigations into the nature of intelligence, and his extension of his personality theory into some areas of social behavior. Eysenck became the leading proponent of the British pragmatic school of psychology and his emphasis on testing and biological factors has often led to serious criticism of his ideas. Despite various controversies surrounding his work, however, Eysenck remains an influential theorist whose theory of personality is believed by many to possess great potential.
Eysenck was the son of a German "actor father and film star mother" who were divorced shortly after his birth (Brand 68). He..."
Abstract This paper presents Jurgen Moltmann's thesis on theology. It explores his view of the Trinity and where God fits in, as well as the relationship between Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Trinity.
From the Paper "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. This invocation, accompanying the sign of the cross, marks the beginning and end of every Roman Catholic prayer. It has become synonymous with Catholicism'a celebration of the crucifix as representative of the Blessed Trinity. While every good Catholic takes this Triumvirate for granted, it is left to theological scholars like J"rgen Moltmann to dissect and analyze the salient features of the Trinity. Is the Trinity a Pneumatological or Christological entity" Is it a combination of the two? Where is God in the scheme of Moltmann's thesis? The theoditic question challenged the omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience of God in his relationship with man. Is this question revisited in relation to Jesus Christ as the carrier of the Holy Spirit during his life on earth? Moltmann presents a clear interpretation of the relationship between Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Trinity in the chapter: "Trinitarian Experience of the Spirit" from his book, ?The Spirit of Life.? (Moltmann, 1992)
Moltmann's thesis is to crystallize the two schools of thought: 1. Christology"God the Father is at the head; the Holy Spirit flows from God to the Son. The father loves the world through the son and he can only do this through the spirit. Christology marks the life of Christ on Earth from a historical/faith perspective. 2. Pneumatology"God the Father sends the Son to save mankind. The son breathes the Spirit into the disciples. The Spirit rises from Christ at the time of the resurrection. The Holy Spirit becomes the origins of evangelicalism. This marks the beginning of the spread of Christianity?eschatology (Vos, 1912). That Moltmann attempts to establish the role of Christ, the Spirit and the Trinity from the New Testament (where no explicit reference to the Trinity is made) is testament to his theological and philosophical abilities."
