File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2000/habermas.0004, message 15

Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 13:22:17 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: HAB: What about reflexive judgment in Habermas?

Roberto--I don't remember seeing your earlier post.  Could you resend it?

As for reflective judgment in Kant's Third Critique as appropriated by
Arendt, which I think I remember involves a mutual codetermination
universal and particular (as opposed to a determinant subsumption of
the particular under a given universal), I'm not aware that Habermas
himself has written much about this.  I'd be interested in some citations
on this, if anyone can provide them.  Also, reflective judgment should not
be confused with the important Habermasian concept of reflexivity, which
your spelling invites.  

I seem to remember seeing a discussion on this in Ricardo Blaug's
_Democracy, Real and Ideal_.

The place in Habermas where I think this formal model of judgment is most
fitting, so to speak, is in the logic of moral application discourses.
There's a lot to say about this--not that Habermas (or Klaus Guenther,
surprisingly) has said much on it.

One thing I would say at this point is that an intersubjective process of
testing validity claims cannot be translated into a supposed "faculty" or
subjective moral sense (appeals to intuition do no justificatory work), so
reflective judgment should more usefully be seen as providing discourse
ethics with a formal model of the equal stature of universals (i.e., prima
facie justified moral norms) and particulars (i.e., situation features) in
moral application discourses, which it cannot replace.


P.S. I really liked Eduardo's comments on Apel.

On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, robade wrote:

> Dear All,
> I sent a few days ago a letter on political rationality and reflexive
> judgment. I was afraid it seemed too general. Is that why nobody gave any
> attention to it? Or there really is no space for reflexive judgment (in
> Arendt's via Kant's conception of it) in Haberma's political philosophy?
> If it would be possible for someone to give me a short answer regarding
> this, it would help me understand at least if the way I'm putting things
> is completly out of the subject.
> I insist because it really is quite difficult using Haberma's philosophy
> when not working specially on him, since he has written so much. And
> because some of you seem really well into Haberma's philosophy.
> With simpathy,
> Roberto
>      --- from list ---

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005