Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:42:37 +0000
Subject: Re: HAB: The ethic of discussion and the problem of time


> Date:          Wed, 4 Mar 1998 19:44:55 -0500
> From:          Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
> Subject:       Re: HAB: The ethic of discussion and the problem of time
> To:            habermas-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> Reply-to:      habermas-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 11:55:46 -0500  Dag Helge Moldenhagen 
> wrote:
> 
> > > But Habermas's anthropology is prescriptive and his 
> analysis  is not objective rather it is evaluative (following 
> Horkheimer and Adorno I think it is possible to demonstrate 
> that  impartiality is a specific kind of partiality). 
>  
> > Where do I find some prescriptions about the relationship 
> between  Habermas and Adorno. This is important because I 
> believe Adorna has  some essentialist thought of the human 
> being. I am thinking of his  concept of "first nature" and his 
> idea of nature's revenge in "The  Dialectic of Enlightment" .  I 
> beleive this  idea is veru difficult to observe in  Habermas' 
> works. Habermas seem to assert that  our original  nature is 
> something that we have to overcome (following an essential 
> idea in the  enlightenment project ? ) I am very keen about 
> response to this idea. 
> 
> First of all I think Habermas's prescriptive understanding of 
> human nature and communication is best found in 
> _Communication and the Evolution of Society_.  Furthermore 
> the kind of critique I am proposing stems from my reading of 
> Benhabib, Heller, Wellmer, J Bernstein, Whitebook, Cooke, 
> Joas, Hewitt, Mills, Fleming, Castoriadis, Adorno, Horkheimer, 
> and Marcuse.
> 
> Adorno's conception of the subject is also a problem (see 
> Jessica Benjamin, Marsha Hewitt, Patricia Mills, and Cornell 
> and Thurschwell) - there is no doubt about it but his approach, 
> the idea of negative dialectics, usefully informs a critique of 
> Habermas.

   Thanks.
 
> Do you have the reference for Ronald Green?
> >> Maybe we should describe it as "omnipartialitity" (Ronald 
> M.  Green193) <<

  Ronald M. Green: The Ethical Manager. A New Method for Business 
Ethics. 1994. (he may thave the thought from J.Rawls) Omnipartialtity 
ion chapter 3 in this book)

 
> >It is a specific form because this kind of impartiality 
> demands empathic response and an informed mind where the 
> voice of all  parts must be taken into consideration. It recalls 
> the christian idea  that rationalirty must be informed by love.
> 
> This is an interesting charge - although I would argue that 
> Habermas already smuggles in a Christian idea of 
> reconciliation which would have some resonance with a 
> Christian undestanding of love. 

 I agree, though I am not quite sure that it refer to the Christian 
Idea- it might be consideres as jewish.  Per Hcibraaten at the 
University of Trondheim considers the idea of reconciliation to be 
the essential idea and program in Habermas' thought. I believe he is 
right. Younshould look up Habermas' memorial speach to the death of 
Adorno titled: "Theodor W.Adorno ware am 11. september 66 Jahre Alt 
geworden. Also John Rawls resembles the same thought: ?
see The Journal of Philosophy , volume  XCII, No.3. March , 1995:
 " Reconciliation through the public 
use of Reason, Remarks on John Rawls political liberalism.
(Author to this article:. Jurgen Habermas.

 I think Helmut Peukert, David 
> Tracy, Charles Davis, and Rudolf Siebert develop this idea a 
> bit (I can't be sure though since I'm not all that familiar with 
> these folks). 

Yes, I am interestes in this.

 Many theologians writings on Habermas attempt 
> to make Habermas's work a bit more "loving" in this regard 
> (through various criticisms). 

I tjhnk Habermas is more open to this perspective than we usually 
admit, thought he is explicitly affirming that he is an atheist. 
Theologian is interested in this idea not because is is christian, 
but because Habermas analysis might resemble the theological thought 
that God is bringing culture/history towards it final target.

 I susupect, however, that this 
> idea is already built-into Habermas's program in an idealist 
> kind of way - although I would be a pains to explain this 
> more.... 
>  
> >  What if I don't want to be a vulcan?  Agnes Heller has 
> > > done one of the best jobs looking at this.  I'll pull out the 
> > > critique of both the perform contra and Hab's anthropology 
> if  you or Dag what to pursue the issue further.
> 
> > You are touching a reseach project which have been "going 
> on in my mind" for a long time. I wopuld be glad for references 
> and to pursue  the issue further.
> 
> Agnes Heller has written a great deal of material about this.  
> Much of it does not discuss Habermas but I would recommend 
> _A Theory of Feelings_, _Beyond Justice_, _An Ethics of 
> Personality_ and her essays in _Universalism vs. 
> Communitarianism_ and _Habermas: Critical Debates_.

Agnes Heler is of great interest to me because of her thought of 
boduy-politics.  Do you know if she is combining Habermas' idea of the 
linguistrificsation of the sacred with her emphasis on embodiment?


> Axel Honneth and Hans Joas have written a bit about Heller's 
> anthropoligicalism (I'm not sure that's even a word) in _Social 
> Action and Human Nature_.  Heller is usually identified as a 
> decisionist (see Jean Cohen "Heller, Habermas, and Justice" 
> in Praxis International 8, no. 4 (Jan. 1989) but I think her 
> writing is much deeper than that (esp. Ethics of Personality).  
> Heller's relentless focus on human needs does a real service 
> in bringing theoretical excess back to reality....  and I believe 
> that the work of Castoriadis, who is getting more and more 
> attention these days (See Honneth, Habermas, Whitebook, 
> and J Bernstein) who also has a lot to contribute to this 
> debate.

Thanks. I look it up
> For what it is worth I think Castoriadis and Heller are two 
> theoretical giants who just don't get enough attention (it is 
> very nice to see Castoriadis's _The Imaginary Institution of 
> Society_ being re-issued in soft cover by MIT Press in March, 
> hey - that's this month!, of 1998).
> 
> ken
> 
> PS.  Michael - any explanation why the depart. of phil at Essex 
> seems to be focused on Habermas and Adorno (Dews, 
> Bernstein, Rose (who died in 1995).... something which, in my 
> opinion, is REALLY important these days....
> 
> 
Greeting 

from DAG (Snow-flakes out the outside of my window, beauty in nature)
> 
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---