This collection of ten essays offers the first systematic assessment of Jurgen Habermas's Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, a book that defended the rational potential of the modern age against the depiction of modernity as a spent epoch. The essays (of which four are newly commissioned, five were published in the journal Praxis International, and one -- by Habermas -- first appeared in translation in New Critique) are divided into two sections: Critical Rejoinders and Thematic Reformulations.An opening essay by d'Entreves sets out the main issues and orients the debate between Habermas and the postmodernists by identifying two different senses of responsibility: a responsibility to act versus a responsibility to otherness (an openness to difference, dissonance, and ambiguity). These are linked with two alternative understandings of the primary function of language: action-orienting versus world-disclosing. This is a fruitful way of looking at the issues that Habermas has raised in his attempt to resurrect and complete the project of Enlightenment.Habermas's essay discusses the main themes of his book in the context of a critical engagement with neoconservative cultural and political trends. The main body of essays offer an interesting collection of points of view, for and against Habermas's position by philosophers, social scientists, intellectual historians, and literary critics.SECTIONS & CONTRIBUTORS : Introduction, Maurizio Passerin d'Entreves. Modernity versus Postmodernity, Jurgen Habermas. Critical Rejoinders : Fred Dallmayr. Christopher Norris. David C. Hoy. James Schmidt. Joel Whitebook. Thematic Reformulations : James Bohman. Diana Coole. Jay M. Bernstein. David Ingram.
1 有用 陆钓雪de飘飘 2019-01-03 00:33:56
From now on there will also be internal histories of science and knowledge, of moral and legal theory, and of art. And although these do not represent linear development, they nonetheless constitute l... From now on there will also be internal histories of science and knowledge, of moral and legal theory, and of art. And although these do not represent linear development, they nonetheless constitute learning processes. That is one side of the issue. On the other side, the distance between these expert cultures and the general public has incresed. (展开)
1 有用 Hier Tanze 2022-04-30 21:29:26
从各个角度对哈贝马斯在《现代性哲学话语》中收归于自己理论的哲学史叙事进行批评。“哈贝马斯自己的的立场只是在考虑其他人的立场的过程中出现的。这种方法不是没有危险的。试图说明自己的见解是如何从早期思想家的努力中产生的,总是有可能把自己的前辈贬低为一系列回答问题的失败尝试,而我们却能轻松地解决这些问题。与他人的‘对话’很容易沦为口技表演,稻草人永远无法得到最后的话语权。”配合着《现代性哲学话语》一起读,... 从各个角度对哈贝马斯在《现代性哲学话语》中收归于自己理论的哲学史叙事进行批评。“哈贝马斯自己的的立场只是在考虑其他人的立场的过程中出现的。这种方法不是没有危险的。试图说明自己的见解是如何从早期思想家的努力中产生的,总是有可能把自己的前辈贬低为一系列回答问题的失败尝试,而我们却能轻松地解决这些问题。与他人的‘对话’很容易沦为口技表演,稻草人永远无法得到最后的话语权。”配合着《现代性哲学话语》一起读,可以消解哈贝马斯精致而强势的声音的影响。 (展开)
1 有用 Hier Tanze 2022-04-30 21:29:26
从各个角度对哈贝马斯在《现代性哲学话语》中收归于自己理论的哲学史叙事进行批评。“哈贝马斯自己的的立场只是在考虑其他人的立场的过程中出现的。这种方法不是没有危险的。试图说明自己的见解是如何从早期思想家的努力中产生的,总是有可能把自己的前辈贬低为一系列回答问题的失败尝试,而我们却能轻松地解决这些问题。与他人的‘对话’很容易沦为口技表演,稻草人永远无法得到最后的话语权。”配合着《现代性哲学话语》一起读,... 从各个角度对哈贝马斯在《现代性哲学话语》中收归于自己理论的哲学史叙事进行批评。“哈贝马斯自己的的立场只是在考虑其他人的立场的过程中出现的。这种方法不是没有危险的。试图说明自己的见解是如何从早期思想家的努力中产生的,总是有可能把自己的前辈贬低为一系列回答问题的失败尝试,而我们却能轻松地解决这些问题。与他人的‘对话’很容易沦为口技表演,稻草人永远无法得到最后的话语权。”配合着《现代性哲学话语》一起读,可以消解哈贝马斯精致而强势的声音的影响。 (展开)
1 有用 陆钓雪de飘飘 2019-01-03 00:33:56
From now on there will also be internal histories of science and knowledge, of moral and legal theory, and of art. And although these do not represent linear development, they nonetheless constitute l... From now on there will also be internal histories of science and knowledge, of moral and legal theory, and of art. And although these do not represent linear development, they nonetheless constitute learning processes. That is one side of the issue. On the other side, the distance between these expert cultures and the general public has incresed. (展开)