Pikkukuvaa napsauttamalla pääset Google Booksiin.
Ladataan... The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (1981)Tekijä: Jürgen Habermas
- Ladataan...
Kirjaudu LibraryThingiin nähdäksesi, pidätkö tästä kirjasta vai et. Ei tämänhetkisiä Keskustelu-viestiketjuja tästä kirjasta. " Depuis la première génération des élèves de Hegel, la philosophie ente d'aborder le medium de la pensée postmétaphysique. Sous ces prémisses, la Théorie de l'agir communicationnel tenté de poursuivre l'élaboration de quatre thèmes de la pensée postmétaphysique. " Par l'esquisse d'une pragmatique formelle, je voudrais radicaliser le tournant linguistique qui, depuis Frege, ainsi que dans le structuralisme, ne fut accompli qu'au prix d'abstractions inadéquates. " Par les concepts complémentaires de monde vécu et d'agir communicationnel, j'entends donner tout son sérieux à cette mise en situation de la raison qui, de Dilthey à Sartre et Merleau-Ponty en passant par Heidegger, ne fut accomplie que dans la dépendance à l'égard de la philosophie de la conscience. Une raison incarnée dans l'agir communicationnel permet d'appréhender l'ensemble dialectique que composent l'ouverture langagière au monde et les procès d'apprentissage dans le monde. " En analysant la base de validité des discours, je voudrais surmonter le logocentrisme qui a marqué effectivement la tradition occidentale. L'ontologie était fixée sur l'étant en sa totalité, la philosophie de la conscience, sur le sujet qui se représente des objets, et l'analyse du langage, sur le discours constatant des faits, et par là, sur le primat de la proposition assertorique. On peut dissiper cette étroitesse de vue sans que la raison en tant que telle s'en trouve dénoncée. " Sur cette voie, on peut prendre congé du concept d'Absolu mais également de la pensée totalisante de la philosophie de la réflexion s'incluant elle-même avec le monde (Kant, Hegel). " Bien qu'elle travaille ces thèmes de pensée philosophiques, la théorie de l'agir communicationnel demeure en son noyau une théorie de la société. " J.H. This is a difficult book to rate, since it's obviously very important/influential. And the horrific style could bias anyone against it. But I finally settled on two stars. Why? * Habermas' theory is meant to be an advance beyond previous critical theories. He argues that their focus on consciousness philosophy (broadly speaking, an individualist approach to social theory, which assumes that individuals are the primary bearers of meaning) leads them into all sorts of problems. But his interpretations of those previous critical theories are, not to put too fine a point on it, appalling. He misreads Hegel; he misreads Marx to such a great extent that one might almost believe he'd never even read *Capital*; and his take on earlier critical theorists is more or less limited to Horkheimer's 'Eclipse of Reason.' Habermas' main criticism of Adorno is that Adorno seeks a solution to the problems of modern societies in a kind of irrationalist mysticism. It is no surprise that almost all of his evidence for this is taken from books *about*, rather than *by* Adorno. (Good rebuttals of Habermas' readings of Hegel and Marx can be found in Pippin's 'Idealism as Modernism,' and Postone's 'Time, Labor and Social Domination' respectively.) * For Habermas, the main problem with previous critical theories is that they don't seem to be grounded. Habermas sees a strict dichotomy here. Either you ground your theory by taking on a universalist perspective, or you lapse into relativism. Because critical theory has tended to avoid universalism, it must be relativistic. This is tied to his failure to understand Hegel's work. Hegel shows that the dichotomy between universalism and relativism is flawed; that something can be grounding without being universal. On this approach, critical theory is right to find its foundation only in an immanent critique of the present, without a universalist standpoint. * Habermas claims to find his universalist standpoint in language. He argues that any any speech act assumes the possibility of rational agreement, and that this can be a basis of a critical theory. Language becomes the inalienable repository of freedom and reconciliation. This is where Habermas' rejection of 'consciousness philosophy' hurts him most. Why is it that language can remain more or less pure? He has no answer for this question. 'Consciousness philosophy,' of course, would argue that since language is bound up with consciousness; and since consciousness somewhat obviously cannot remain 'pure' in an impure world; then language itself cannot remain pure, and cannot be the universal standpoint Habermas seeks. * Finally, Habermas tries to combine two sociological approaches: systems theory and action theory. He never asks, however, if these theories themselves might be reflections of actual social problems which cannot be merely 'combined' at the theoretical level. A critical theory will show the problems with these theories, and explain how to move past them. Habermas does not do this, because he accepts Daniel Bell's thesis of 'end of ideology.' Theories are now just different standpoints from which we view the same content, not reflections of that content itself. Again, a bit more 'consciousness philosophy' would have led Habermas to see that this separation of form and content - which he sees as a key moment of modernism - is theoretically untenable. * On a somewhat more obvious level, this was a theory designed for a welfare-state world. This world collapsed just as these volumes were being published in German. Habermas himself said, in an interview around the time they were being published, that this work assumed such a welfare state world ("The Dialectics of Rationalization," in 'Telos'). The disappearance of that world made it clear that 'power' was no more than a handmaiden to 'money.' The best recent work of critical theory, Postone's book mentioned above, makes this argument very well. That's all substantive stuff. On a less high-falutin' level, this book is horrifically written, spends far too much time summarizing previous sociological theories, and shows a frankly bizarre addiction to unnecessary, quasi-scholastic hair-splitting. For those interested in critical theory, I recommend reading the 'intermediate reflections' and 'concluding reflections.' Otherwise, it's like reading a freshman-comp paper written by a staggering genius. näyttää 3/3 ei arvosteluja | lisää arvostelu
Kuuluu näihin sarjoihin
Here, for the first time in English, is volume one of Jurgen Habermas's long-awaited magnum opus: The Theory of Communicative Action. This pathbreaking work is guided by three interrelated concerns: (1) to develop a concept of communicative rationality that is no longer tied to the subjective and individualistic premises of modern social and political theory; (2) to construct a two-level concept of society that integrates the 'lifeworld' and 'system' paradigms; and (3) to sketch out a critical theory of modernity that explains its sociopathologies in a new way. Habermas approaches these tasks through a combination of conceptual analyses, systematic reflections, and critical reconstructions of such predecessors as Marx and Weber, Durkheim and Mead, Horkheimer and Adorno, Schutz and Parsons. Reason and the Rationalization of Society develops a sociological theory of action that stresses not its means-ends or teleological aspect, but the need to coordinate action socially via communication. In the introductory chapter Habermas sets out a powerful series of arguments on such foundational issues as cultural and historical relativism, the methodology of Verstehen, the inseparabilty of interpretation from critique. In addition to clarifying the normative foundations of critical social inquiry, this sets the stage for a systematic appropriation of Weber's theory of rationalization and its Marxist reception by Lukacs, Horkheimer and Adorno. This is an important book for degree students of philosophy, sociology and related subjects. Kirjastojen kuvailuja ei löytynyt. |
Current Discussions-Suosituimmat kansikuvat
Google Books — Ladataan... LajityypitMelvil Decimal System (DDC)301.01Social sciences Social Sciences; Sociology and anthropology Sociology and anthropology standard subdivisions of sociology and/or anthropology Philosophy and theoryKongressin kirjaston luokitusArvio (tähdet)Keskiarvo:
Oletko sinä tämä henkilö? |
De todos modos, Habermas no presenta sus ideas de forma sistemática, sino que las va introduciendo como a plazos. Así, en el "Interludio primero" y también en los párrafos finales es donde encontramos más o menos claramente expuestas sus intenciones. Por lo demás, esto es obviamente el libro de un profesor universitario, un investigador profesional, muy formal y muy serio, mucho más dedicado a apoyarse y glosar a otros profesores que a arriesgarse con sus propias ideas, aunque, como digo, las vaya soltando aquí y allá. Un libro duro de leer, pero muy interesante para entender muchas ideas que luego encontramos vulgarizadas en tertulias y eslóganes políticos. ( )