Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication Theory | Bubner | I 198 Communication theory/BubnerVsHabermas: it is claimed that the observance of the formal conditions is guaranteed for the first time in history, 1. in truth, however, political events are to be transformed structurally according to the paradigm of a philosophical ideal. Idealization because the number of participants must be limited, and this is neither a historical coincidence nor a prejudice of undemocratic eliteism. I 199 2. The planned entry into the dialogue is characterized by the breaking of previously unquestioned unanimity, yet the controversy must take place in the primary intention of returning to the community. However, efforts to reach consensus are not yet agreed, and especially consensus brings the foundation of collective practice about. In a word: the dialogue is a means, but not the last content of politics. 3. It is not clear which are the contents of the event. >Dialogue, >Communication, >Discourse, >Discourse theory, >Politics. With the tendency to reformulate the flow of practice into a permanent dialogue, the contents that are derived from everyday political life are lost. The contents become playful as long as they are removed from the practical consequences. BubnerVsCommunication theory: shows that instead of a rationalization proposal for political processes in reality a new determination of the political is intended. The substantial content of the Aristotelianism which was made up of the commonality of action-orientated values was viewed as historically overtaken or consumed. >Good/Aristotle, >Community/Aristotle. The signum of modernism, subjectivity, does not longer allow the focus on good life, since this reflexive structure of the practice structure does not take into account the particularity of the individual. I 201 BubnerVsCommunication Theory/BubnerVsHabermas: seem to concentrate solely on the act of the conclusion of contract, which they reinterpret with linguistic means and declare it a permanent process. But they refrain from the stately state of tamed practice, which they suspect of the enforcement of governance. Instead of allowing politics through the contract, politics is an unceasing succession of contracts. Every trivial conflict takes the form of a fundamental problem. >Contracts, >Contract theory, cf. >Social contract. The institutional skepticism of communication theory reaches so deeply that the avoidance of the structural determination of political order is in principle pursued in the form of the favoring of the dialogue. Procedural rules, official channels, decisionistic decisions, separation of powers, temporary governance. The whole system of the differentiated form of organization of the political is suspended, and can always be revised in conversation. Other writers: the basic idealization has been lamented, the confusion of the modes of theoretical discussion with practice, the unhistorical neglect of the requirements of factual complexity of society, etc. Bubner: the main objection, however, is that the prerequisite of all political speeches, the commonality of the objectives, is thwarted in favor of an abstract agreement between partners, whose joint action remains as long as they are discussing in the dialogue method. >Subjectivity. |
Bu I R. Bubner Antike Themen und ihre moderne Verwandlung Frankfurt 1992 |
| Communication Theory | Habermas | Bubner I 196 Habermas/Communication theory/Bubner: Thesis: Thinking of the functioning of the political system according to the model of dialogue. Clear formal conditions which should be transferred to the political system as a whole. 1. Equality of the partners, no relationship between the knowing and the ignorant. >Interaction, >Master/slave dicalectic. 2. This is not to take place, as in Hegel, by laboriously dealing with the relation of master and servant, but rather as a priori, without which there is no interaction at all. 2. Obligation to refrain from influencing, equal scope. 3. Authenticity postulate: obligation to truth. Since intentions are not to be examined, only the course of the dialogue itself can provide the proof. >Discourse, >Argumentation. BubnerVsHabermas: since one builds from the outset on truthfulness, it is obviously more a question of definition, which one wants to allow as a dialogue at all. >Truthfulness, >Truth. Bubner I 198 Communication theory/BubnerVsHabermas: it is claimed that the observance of the formal conditions is guaranteed for the first time in history, 1. in fact, political events are to be transformed structurally according to the paradigm of a philosophical ideal. Idealization because the number of participants must be limited, and this is neither a historical coincidence nor a prejudice of undemocratic eliteism. >Ideal speech community. Bubner I 199 2. the planned entry into the dialogue is characterized by the breaking of previously unquestioned unanimity, yet the controversy must take place in the primary intention of returning to the community. However, efforts to reach consensus are not yet consensus, and consensus is the foundation of collective practice. >Collectives/Habermas, >Practice. In a word: the dialogue is a means, but not the last content of politics. 3. It is not clear what is actually the content of the event. With the tendency to reformulate the flow of practice into a permanent dialogue, the contents that are derived from everyday political life are lost. The content becomes playful as long as they are removed from the practical consequences. BubnerVsCommunication theory: shows that instead of a rationalization proposal for political processes in reality a new determination of the political is intended. The substantial content of the Aristotelianism which was in the community of action-orientated values is seen as historically overtaken or consumed. >Values, >The Good/Aristotle. The signum of modernism, subjectivity, no longer allows the focus on good life, for this reflexive structure of the practice structure does not take into account the particularity of the individual. >Subjectivity, >Individuals. |
Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 Bu I R. Bubner Antike Themen und ihre moderne Verwandlung Frankfurt 1992 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heidegger, M. | Habermas Vs Heidegger, M. | I 165 Subject Philosophy: Hegel and Marx had got caught in their own basic concepts while trying to overcome it. This objection cannot be raised against Heidegger, but similarly serious one. It distances himself so little from the problem specifications of transcendental consciousness that he can only overcome its concepts by means of abstract negation. But his "Letter on Humanism" (result of ten years of Nietzsche interpretation) relies essentially on Husserl’s phenomenology. I 178 HabermasVsHeidegger: does certainly not embark on the path to a communication-theoretical answer. Namely, he devalues the structures of the normal-life background from the outset as structures of an average everyday existence, the inauthentic existence. Therefore, he cannot make the analysis of "co-existence" fruitful. He only starts dealing with the analysis of language after he had steered his analyzes in a different direction. "Who?" of the existence: no subject, but a neuter, the one. I 179 HabermasVsHeidegger: World: when it comes to making the world intelligible as a process of its own, he falls back into the subject philosophical concept constraints. Because the solipsistically designed existence once more takes the place of transcendental subjectivity. The authorship for designing the world is expected of existence. I 180 The classical demand of the philosophy of origins for ultimate justification and self-justification is not rejected, but answered in the sense of a Fichtean action modified to a world design. The existence justifies itself on its own. I.e. Heidegger, in turn, conceives the world as a process only from the subjectivity of the will to self-assertion. This is the dead-end of the philosophy of the subject. It does not matter whether primacy is given to epistemological questions or question of existence. The monologue-like execution of intentions,i.e. purpose activity is considered as the primary form of action. (VsCommunication). The objective world remains the point of reference. (Model of the knowledge relation). I 182 HeideggerVsNietzsche "revolution of Platonism": HabermasVsHeidegger: Heidegger now used precisely this as a solution. He turns the philosophy of origin around without departing from its problem specifications. HabermasVsHeidegger: Downright world-historical significance of the turn: temporalization of existence. Uprooting of the propositional truth and devaluation of discursive thought. This is the only way it can make it appear as if it escaped the paradoxes of any self-referential criticism of reason. I 183 HabermasVsHeidegger: fails to recognize that the horizon of understanding the meaning borne to the being is not ahead of the question of truth, but, in turn, is subject to it. Whether the validity conditions are actually fulfilled, so that sentences can work does not depend on the language, but on the innerworldly success of practice. HabermasVsHeidegger: even the ultimate control authority of an how ever objective world is lost through the turnover: the prior dimension of unconcealment is an anonymous, submission-seeking, contingent, the course of the concrete history preempting fate of being. |
Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Subject Philosophy | Habermas Vs Subject Philosophy | I 119 Philosophy of the Subject: (HabermasVs, NietzscheVs,) ... the nihilistic domination of subject-centered reason is conceived as result and expression of a perverseness of the will to power. I 180 ...the existence is justified out of itself. Thus, Heidegger conceives the world as a process again only from the subjectivity of the will self-assertion. This is the dead-end of the philosophy of the subject. It does not matter whether primacy is given to epistemological questions or the question of being. The monological execution of intentions, i.e. purpose activity is considered as the primary form of action. (VsCommunication). The objective world remains the point of reference. (Model of the cognitive relation). I 309 HabermasVsSubject Philosophy: the attempt to escape the unfortunate alternatives always ends in the entanglements of self-deifying subject consuming itself in acts of futile self-transcendence. Since Kant, the I simultaneously takes the position of an empirical subject in the world where it finds itself as an object among others. In the position of a transcendental subject it faces is a world as a whole which its constitutes itself as the totality of the objects of possible experiences. The attempts to understand these irreconcilable alternatives as self-generation of the mind or of the genus range from Hegel to Merleau-Ponty. HabermasVsHegel: because these hybrid undertakings pursue the utopia of complete self-knowledge, they keep turning into positivism. (Today: the body-soul problem). I 435 LuhmannVsSubject Philosophy: "Simple minds want to counter this with ethics." (Habermas: not without scorn.). HabermasVsSubject Philosophy: overall social awareness as a superordinate subject, it creates a zero-sum game in which the room for maneuver of individuals cannot be accommodated properly. ((s) Every social conflict would appear as schizophrenia.) Habermas: Solution: alternative concept strategy: public communities can be understood as a higher-level intersubjectivities. In this aggregated public there is also an overall social consciousness. This no longer needs to fulfill the precision requirements of the philosophy of the subject to the self-consciousness! Luhmann II 136 Subject Philosophy/Habermas: Problem: in philosophical discussions, ideological criticism not even survives the simplest self-application. At most, it can explain why someone is wrong, but it cannot show that there is a mistake. |
J. Habermas I Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne, Frankfurt/M. 1988 4. Eintritt in die Postmoderne: Nietzsche als Drehscheibe 6. Die metaphysikkritische Unterwanderung des okzidentalen Rationalismus: Heidegger 7. Überbietung der temporalisierten Ursprungsphilosophie: Derridas Kritik am Phonozentrismus Exkurs zur Einebnung des Gattungsunterschiedes zwischen Philosophie und Literatur 9. Vernunftkritische Entlarvung der Humanwissenschaften: Foucault 10. Aporien einer Machttheorie (Foucault) Exkurs zu Luhmanns systemtheoretischer Aneignung der subjektphilosophischen Erbmasse II Walter Reese-Schäfer Habermas für Einsteiger, Frankfurt/M. 2001 III Jürgen Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Vol I Frankfurt 1981 IV Jürgen Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Vol. II Frankfurt 1981 AU I N. Luhmann Introduction to Systems Theory, Lectures Universität Bielefeld 1991/1992 German Edition: Einführung in die Systemtheorie Heidelberg 1992 Lu I N. Luhmann Die Kunst der Gesellschaft Frankfurt 1997 |
| |||