Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: re: HAB: Habermas and practical philosophy (Bill)



Bill:

The Gadamer quote was good reading. Thanks for taking the time to
reproduce it. 

On the one hand, I don't believe that JH is averse to anything in
Gadamer's characterization, though he wouldn't agree to characterize
his work overall as practical philosophy wholly in Gadamer's sense,
given JH's interest in a fundamental revisionary potential of
critique (which can seem alien to Gadamer); and JH gives more
importance for philosophy to metatheory, as integrative discourse
across reconstructive sciences, than Gadamer aimed to do, it seems to
me. I would agree, though, that "the concept of practical philosophy
[CAN] capture[] fairly well the overall nature of JH's various
interests and efforts." But what the concept of practical philosophy
ultimately means for *Habermas* is elusive. It certainly includes
what Gadamer represents. 

On the other hand, it could be that Gadamer gives more importance to
the individuality of human flourishing than JH. It seems to me that
theorizing the character of excellence in a life is secondary for JH
to theorizing the life's due as a citizen, but of course JH *is*, all
in all, a political philosopher. (The whole concern with
moral-cognitive development is a manner of reconstructive-scientific
attention to excellence, and the aspirational character of
self-understanding, in terms of "ethical life" is more prominenant
after 1988--shown especially in the "Liberal Eugenics" essay.)

Along with a reconstructive-hermeneutical project of "reflective
awareness" of constructivist valuation (i.e., "developing those
fundamental human orientations for...preferring"), JH wants to weave
in critique and metatheory equiprimordially, it seems to me. Ethics
is complemented by anthropology (as background), critique and law (as
pragmatic systemization of critically ethical life. He probably
wouldn't agree with *this* characterization, but I think it works, as
much as any short characterization can). [There's a point where I
don't want to give up the constructive ambiguity between what I
understand JH to be *doing* and what I want JH *to be* doing, such
that I would have to go to particular texts to ask: What's he really
doing *there*? vs. What might be also good to do there, and is he
amenable to doing that, if not on the way to doing that, too? I think
he's amenable to all things authentic and realistic.]

Certainly, JH is centrally concerned with accountability for one's
evaluative stances, i.e., "be[ing] accountable...for the viewpoint...
preferred [...with respect] to the good."  And the action-orienting
guidance that this provides for JH the philosopher or metatheorist
(expressed in the "practical science" of reconstructive inquiry)
shows in the "concrete situations" he examines via political essays
and topical commentary (the public intellectual in Germany), and such
engagement is "related back to practice" in political theory. But the
result is something other than "the specific character of
Aristotelian ethics and politics."
 
Nonetheless, I agree with you that "the Gadamerian deposit in
Habermas's thought is more pervasive than has been recognized
explicitly" by some (esp. diehard Frankfurt Schoolers, maybe). In the
thick of the Gadamer-Habermas debate, I got the weird feeling that
these friends basically agreed with each other (re: complementarity
of depth hermeneutics and critique of ideology), but took up public
dispute in order to advance wider appreication in the issues in a
sleepy academic community. The hermeneutical dimension is certainly
evident in _J&A_.


Best regards,


Gary




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com


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