Habermas Puns

For context before diving into my question, I'm a literary critic by training, so my exposure to philosophy is mostly by way of critical theory - specifically, Marxism and the Frankfurt School, and its influence on literary criticism and theory. It's my understanding that Habermas's generation began to move away from the traditional roots of critical theory and define a new model for thinking more derived from the American pragmatists --- and this is the point where literary theorists stop caring. The icon of contemporary critical theory for the literary critic, so to speak, is Butler, who very much operates in the tradition of Marcuse and Adorno. That is to say, my understanding of Habermas is limited; nonetheless, I wanted to perhaps have something cleared up.

It is my understanding that Habermas is a critic of postmodern thought, which I, considering my training, associate with the likes of Derrida, Foucault, Butler, et cetera. I do know, though, that Rorty - and, it is my understanding, especially in his later work - is, too, emblematic of this tradition and a key figure in the American pragmatist movement that so influenced Habermas's take on critical theory. How might Habermas, at one time and the same, critique postmodern and poststructuralist thought and champion Enlightenment-era concepts, while too centering a squarely postmodern way of thinking? What's the relationship between his insistence on modern logics, and his postmodern influences?

Am I misunderstanding Habermas? Rorty? What might I read from either to better understand this dynamic particularly?

Listening to the great lecturer Michael Sugrue and came across his video on the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas and I've to say, based solely on this video, this dude was a hardcore Forwardist.

Everything the lecture says I agree with and wish our civilization worked this way.

For anyone not familiar, like me 3 hours ago, please take a listen and maybe explore a bit more. I know I will.

https://youtu.be/4KVPMTDipbI

Could somebody please explain Habermas argument for why the social sciences should actively criticise society to me?

It's seems that he completely accepts the liberal order, yet I would like to hear a different perspective on that.

is the notion of lifeworld as distinct from systems compatible with Foucault's societies of discipline?

it seems to me that Foucault would very much doubt the possibility of separating the communitive rationality of the public sphere from the instrumental rationality of systems.

yet, I keep hearing from my professors that Habermas and Foucault can complete each other in some way.

Years ago, I read Jürgen Habermas's Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. At the time, it had a profound effect on my own thinking. But I haven't read anything further in 25 years.

What should I read next as an introduction? I don't think I'm ready to plunge into the Theory of Communicative Action.

My knowledge of his philosophy is pretty schematic, and yet what I understand resonates strongly with me. It merges sociological and linguistic/speech act theory with systems theory, Neo-Kantianism, and pragmatism—while also rejecting the pessimism of the Frankfurt School. It seems to suggest the possibility of a kind of morality and human emancipation in our ability to communicate successfully with each other.

Title basically. Does anyone know of any resources (essays, articles, books) that talk about Jurgen Habermas' engagement with contemporary German politics, and his relationship to its various political parties?

I'm writing a research paper on Habermas's theory of the public sphere (especially the work of Fraser "Transnationlizing the public sphere"). However, I'm not familiar with the whole philosophical tradition of German idealism and also with all of Habermas's theoretical work. Therefore, I am struggling to understand some details and contexts of the sources, also, I want to make sure that the conclusions that I have reached are valid from an expert perspective.

Thus, I am asking for some help from German philosophy and Habermas's theory expert who can assist me in writing this research paper, in drawing the big pictures, and in understanding the texts more clearly. If you do know someone who could help, please don't hesitate to reach me.

Does 'systematically distorted communication' (or what Iris Marion Young would later call 'hegemonic discourse') render deliberative democracy completely invalid as a vehicle for fighting injustice? Is it even possible to buttress a deliberative process against this kind of thing? I'm trying to understand what deliberative democrats are getting on about, but I just can't see it.

(Also, my institution apparently doesn't have access to Habermas' 1970 article in Inquiry called 'On Systematically Distorted Communication' anymore. Can a comrade with access to a copy please DM it to me and save me from spending $45 to buy it? Here is the DOI.)

In “The German Idealism of the Jewish Philosophers,” from which all quotations in this post are taken, Habermas observes that “against the waves of fascist irrationalism, Husserl wanted to erect the claim of a renewed rationalism.” Husserl’s was not an effort to link rationalism with naturalism and objectivism, though. Habermas quotes Husserl’s view that “the reason for the failure of a rational culture...lies not in the essence of rationalism itself but solely in its being rendered superficial, in its entanglement in ‘naturalism’ and ‘objectivism,’” commenting that the crisis for Husserl was rooted in a false grounding of reason in the natural scientific reduction of spiritual phenomena to what is physically explainable.

Husserl called for a limited severing of committed participation in life, for an epoche leading to a pure theory that would reveal the activity and achievements of consciousness previously unknown to itself. It was ultimately a quest for a “new humanity” guiding itself in a self-responsibility made possible by these theoretical insights, and owed much to “the cultivated world of European humanism.”

Now it is this world of cultivated European humanism, Habermas reminds us, that held such great appeal to assimilating German Jews in Husserl’s time, to the “exceptional Jews of culture.” When Cassirer debated Heidegger in Davos in 1929, “Cassirer represented the world to which Husserl belonged,” this cultivated European humanism so appealing to assimilating German Jews; and in Davos it hit a brick wall in Heidegger, “whose radicality attacked the Goethe [classical German] culture at its very roots.”

But Jewish philosophers, it turns out, had other sources as well, and tapped what “secretly resided only in the depths of their own tradition, the Kabbalah” (which is not to say that they explicitly called on the tradition of the Kabbalah or understood their thought in this way), but I’ll leave the story there for now.

How seriously is this book in particular taken in the social sciences?

Certain points are compelling within the framework laid out by the rest of the book, such as:

Habermas' description of the instrumentality of the psychological novel as a communal means of understanding private interiority (a staple of bourgeois culture) which, after a long theoretical account, is said to support the individual's and society's basic economic reproduction.

Since the book is decidedly not empirically supported, I'd be curious to hear what sort of weight is given to it, and to books of a similar vein - i.e., those bridging the gap between social science, behavioural science (perhaps?), economics and philosophy.

Thanks in advance!

How does his stance on religion relate to his understanding of Enlightenment modernity? I’m writing a paper and I’m extremely confused by Habermas. I’m supposed to draw on his writings in “Modernity: An Unfinished Project” , “Taking Aim at the Heart of the Present” and “Equal Treatment of Cultures and the Limits of Postmodern Liberalism”. Any help is appreciated more than you know!!

I'm writing a research paper on Habermas's theory of the public sphere (especially the work of Fraser "Transnationlizing the public sphere"). However, I'm not familiar with the whole philosophical tradition of German idealism and also with all of Habermas's theoretical work. Therefore, I am struggling to understand some details and contexts of the sources, also, I want to make sure that the conclusions that I have reached are valid from an expert perspective.

Thus, I am asking for some help from German philosophy and Habermas's theory expert who can assist me in writing this research paper, in drawing the big pictures, and in understanding the texts more clearly. If you do know someone who could help, please don't hesitate to reach me.

I'm writing a research paper on Habermas's theory of the public sphere (especially the work of Fraser "Transnationlizing the public sphere"). However, I'm not familiar with the whole philosophical tradition of German idealism and also with all of Habermas's theoretical work. Therefore, I am struggling to understand some details and contexts of the sources, also, I want to make sure that the conclusions that I have reached are valid from an expert perspective.

Thus, I am asking for some help from German philosophy and Habermas's theory expert who can assist me in writing this research paper, in drawing the big pictures, and in understanding the texts more clearly. If you do know someone who could help, please don't hesitate to reach me.