Subject: Re: [HAB:]  Is "weak naturalism" "metaphysical" for Habermas?
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:08:33 -0500


Hi Gary,

I totally agree with you that natualism isn't a subject in the earlier 
writings of Habermas (for different reasons). But in my opinion one can 
recognize naturalism tendencies already in his concept of self-consciousness 
he draws in Nachmetaphysisches Denken (I do not know the english titel).
In my dissertation I try to show, that Habermas substitutes the metaphysical 
implications he criticises in the debate with Dieter Henrich (I am not 
related to this Henrich :) ) with his notion of a weak naturalism. (One can 
see that also in his description of weak naturalism in the introduction to 
TaV..even if he speaks there about epistemological not practical concerns.) 
I also try to show this on his Begündungs-concept in the debate with Karl 
Otto Apel on the one side and with Richard Rorty on the other.
In my opinion this proceeding has consequences that contradict some of his 
arguments in discourse ethics and he might even gets problems with his 
concept of communicative reason. At the moment I try to figure out if there 
are possibilities to solve or avoid these problems without being either 
metaphysical or naturalistic.
(This was a very short compend.. :) )

Take care
Daniel
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary E. Davis" <coherings-AT-yahoo.com>
To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 4:33 PM
Subject: [HAB:] Is "weak naturalism" "metaphysical" for Habermas?


> re: Daniel, "Re: [HAB:] There is no naturalism or
> systemism in Habermas's work"
> -------------------------
>
> Hi, Daniel,
>
> Thanks immensely for drawing attention to the notion
> of "weak naturalism."
>
> I avoided bringing that up in my discussion of Matt's
> thesis passages because: (1) Matt wasn't making such a
> distinction. Given such a distinction, between weak
> and strong naturalism, Matt is concerned about strong
> naturalism, which is absent from JH's work. People who
> worry about naturalism are worried about a strong
> naturalism (e.g., recent concerns by Kevin Olson about
> "biologism"). (2) The notion of weak naturalism in
> JH's work arises in the mid- or late '90s, "long"
> after the texts at hand for Matt  (viz., TCA and BFN)
> were written by JH (though one could formulate the
> theme from what he says in _TCA_ and earlier
> work---but that would be a subtle venture unlike
> Matt's mode of inquiry about naturalism in JH's
> texts).
>
> I completely subscribe to JH's interest in a weak
> naturalism. He poses the notion relative to a converse
> concern for "epistemological realism." The two go
> together. Ever since _T&J_ appeared in the U.S. (I
> don't read German anymore, I shamefully confess), I've
> been enchanted by this dyad, and have referred to it
> several times in postings here, in the spirit of
> eventually getting at the "ultimate" philosophical
> venue in JH's work. I have much to say about that.
>
> D> [Whether] there are metaphysical implications in
> the discourse ethics of Habermas ....comes down to the
> question: what is the meaning of Habermas' schwachem
> Naturalismus and what kind of consequences does this
> have.
>
> G: And what's your thought on this?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- 



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