The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity
The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures is a book by Jürgen Habermas. The first time in 1985, published by Suhrkamp band gathers lectures held Habermas in the years 1983/1984 at the Collège de France, and at Cornell University and at Boston College. Habermas added the lyrics by an already published paper and a newly written final chapter. In it, it comes to the aporia, which produces a subject-centered reason in the grounds of modernity. Above all, he is in the lectures, these problems represent, and futile efforts, in particular the so- designated by him Nietzsche followers to escape them. Habermas is limited in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, mainly due to the negative criticism, while presenting his counter-model in the theory of communicative action.
Habermas addresses the question of the extent to which modernity is able to establish reasonable grounds itself. Therefore it is necessary to find a principle which is inherent in modernity itself, which proves the modernity as reasonable, which also have the same stabilizing effect on society as in the pre-modern religion. On this basis, he is concerned with the creation of a European identity that breaks with the Europe of the Minister of Defense and competitiveness, and decided the legacy of occidental rationality absorbs in itself.
In the lectures, Habermas draws a connection between Hegel and Nietzsche on the Left Hegelians, and post- modernism. With Hegel, the modern philosophy, to become aware of their self- started, and to look for answers for the modern problem of justification. Hegel constructed the " subject-centered reason " as a principle, in order to fulfill the conditions mentioned three. This, however, has a tendency to absolutism of rationality and the respective reached this stage of reflection. It requires a dialectic of enlightenment. The justification principle needs as a fourth condition, there must be a self-criticism, allow modernity. Tried but the subject-centered reason to criticize themselves, they also criticized the concept of reason itself, and becomes entangled in hopeless paradoxes.
Habermas examines different conceptual models to deal with these paradoxes. Neo-conservatives welcome the situation, and try the cultural modernism and some features of the Enlightenment ( democracy, equality ) to adopt. The practice philosophy attempts of social labor to award priority for the individual, but shows up as a child of the subject-centered philosophy and remain rooted in their contradictions.
The other two approaches have not Hegel, but Nietzsche as the origin. In his critique of reason Nietzsche shortened one hand, the reason for the will to power. On the other hand, Nietzsche held a philosophical critique of reason possible, by digging up the roots of metaphysical thought, without impersonate philosophy. The second program follow this Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. This can not overcome metaphysics. Their theories lead to fatalism and they pave the differences between a world development and problem solving.
In Chapters 9 and 10, a central text of the Foucault - Habermas debate, he deals with Michel Foucault's draft genealogy. Habermas characterizes it as a teachable - positive historiography, which acts as anti-science. But Foucault also can not criticize power without getting caught in the aporias of its self-referentiality, what in particular leads the irritating basic concept of power in Foucault's theory. Habermas criticizes Foucault normalizing tendencies of the disciplined companies, as well as hierarchies of knowledge within society the possibilities of critical thinking undermine. Unlike Foucault, however, Habermas sees these failures not philosophically justified, but in certain " social pathologies " of late capitalist societies. Unlike Foucault he sees the humanism not as a problem but as a necessary measure in order to criticize the dehumanization can. At the same time he suspects Foucault to be a closeted humanist who aspire only trying to find a simpler philosophical paradigm, in which he can reformulate the old human rights.
Notwithstanding the above four strategies Habermas maintains a self-grounding of reason in Hegel's principles continue to be possible. But the lie no subject-centered, but a communicative reason underlying that represents Habermas in the theory of communicative action.