Habermas
Jürgen Habermas
Dialogue and reason can, (and must) be used to solve problems, (like those in the Sudan and in Colombia). Marcus Aurelius wrote about this, he studied Epictetus. Epictetus wrote the first "self hep" book (the Enchiridon), about using reason to solve problems.
"[Habermas] shares with Socrates an almost utopian belief in the wholesomeness of debate and discussion."
"He believes we can reason out solutions to our problems, that just institutions can lead to a fairer society."
After the Habermas quotes, I have some articles about Mayor Mockus who got me interested in Habermas by a televised talk he gave a few years ago.
THE THEOLOGIAN OF TALK;THE QUESTION IS WHETHER JUSTICE EXISTS AND REASON CAN BENEFIT SOCIETY. IT'S POSTMODERN TO SAY NO, BUT JURGEN HABERMAS, A GERMAN PHILOSOPHER, DISAGREES.
"Habermas has been able to go into discussions in political theory, in sociology, in psychology, in legal theory -- in a dozen different disciplines -- and become one of the dominant voices in each one."
In the academic world nowadays, such range, depth and dominance attract an endless stream of conference invitations. Habermas accepts his share. And sometimes at these conferences, particularly if Americans are in attendance, he'll find himself surrounded by postmodernists. Swords will be raised. The debate will resume. The postmodernists might begin questioning, for example, whether "reason" isn't just the name the powerful give to their rationales for holding power or whether "justice" isn't just an excuse for the majority to impose its morality on the minority. (One such conference was dominated by legal theorists from Harvard Law School.) Habermas, an aficionado of open debate, will fight back, enthusiastically, aggressively.
He believes we can reason out solutions to our problems, that just institutions can lead to a fairer society. And when irony-wielding postmodernists make light of these possibilities, Habermas responds with formidable barrages of scholarship and logic.
Habermas has had a large number of good ideas as he has sailed from one research area to another. But behind his contributions to all these different disciplines there seems to have been one central theme: his theory of "communicative action."
As Seyla Benhabib, a professor of political theory at Harvard, explains: "Habermas believes human social life rests on our capacity to have more or less clear communication with each other." We communicate -- to paraphrase Descartes -- therefore our society exists.
A rather antiquated, idealistic message to be spreading, some might think, in a world of abusive talk-show hosts, misogynistic rap groups and earphone-encased teen-agers. Habermas is, to be sure, as concerned about pop culture as the next philosopher. But he continues to believe that somewhere behind the better of our attempts to communicate with each other, there have to be some shared values, shared respect and acknowledged equality. He sees the participants in conversations, in other words, as playing on the same teams. And as they talk together, Habermas insists, they make an effort to employ reason.
"This may not seem like a big deal," Benhabib acknowledges. "But it has fundamentally changed our way of thinking about society in the last 25 years or so." Habermas' theory, she explains, calls into question a belief that is widely held by cynical and fashionable thinkers on the right and the left: the belief that human behavior should be seen as a battlefield upon which each of us is merely out for our own strategic interests. In our "communicative actions," the right sees selfish individuals struggling to get a leg up on each other; the postmodern left sees the powerful exploiting the powerless; but Habermas sees, of all things, a kind of cooperation. Indeed, he shares with Socrates an almost utopian belief in the wholesomeness of debate and discussion.
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/stephens/Habermas%20page.htm
-
Mayor Mockus has applied Habermas' ideas in Bogota with success:The Bogota ExperimentWhat happens when you elect a mathematics and philosophy professor mayor? You get mimes on the street. And, it turns out, that's a good thing.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000483.html
Academic turns city into a social experiment
Mayor Mockus of Bogotá and his spectacularly applied theory By María Cristina Caballero...the Harvard News Office
Antanas Mockus had just resigned from the top job of Colombian National University. A mathematician and philosopher, Mockus looked around for another big challenge and found it: to be in charge of, as he describes it, "a 6.5 million person classroom."
Mockus' seemingly wacky notions have a respectable intellectual pedigree. His measures were informed by, among others, Nobel Prize-winning economist Douglass North, who has investigated the tension between formal and informal rules, and Jürgen Habermas' work on how dialogue creates social capital.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/03.11/01-mockus.htm
Habermas claims that communiation is a basic component of society, and that reason is a basic component of communication.
Although Habermas bristled at the presumption that he has had "one great idea," the philosopher is willing, after some meditation, to admit to the existence of a "thread" that runs through his work. This is it: "I think that a certain form of unrestrained communication brings to the fore the deepest force of reason, which enables us to overcome egocentric or ethnocentric perspectives and reach an expanded . . . view."
This thread ties in neatly with the values of the Enlightenment. Those of us who have been out of social studies class for a while may need to be reminded that the Enlightenment was a struggle, which began 200 years ago, in the name of reason, against tyranny, superstition and inequity. Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson saw themselves as involved in that struggle. Habermas has contributed to it, too.
Habermas Eschews Metaphysics
I ran across an interesting quote about Habermas:
"Kant wanted to be the Newton of the moral world, ...Habermas wants to be the Einstein of the moral world, without splitting the world into the physical and the metaphysical, ...and to restore the notion of progress." [ Sugrue]
And to describe the world and society without using words that still are capitalized after translation into English.
.....Capt. Nemo, 2002
Quine proves Whorf
The Ontological Relativity of Quine proves the Whorf Hypothesis of languages.
"The ontologial reference of some object is relative to the metalanguage it is translated into.""...for instance, set theory or number theory." [Staloff]
Quine presents a rigorous proof conforming to the rules of Logical Positivism in the fields of mathematics and logic.
The Whorf hypothesis was derived from a different dicipline, the study of linguistics.
Bravo! Kudos to all parties! Good work, team! (I ain't kiddin'!)
(To those not privy to Metaphysics Anonymous material, this is something we've known for some time but had only evidence and intuition with no airtight proof. Bringing together the physical and the metaphysical such that those two dichotomies become superfluous, we finally live up the name "Metaphysics Anonymous" and are well on our way to recovery from the ravages of the Great Gaseous Vertebrate's followers. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Moslems still commit genocide on the Nuba tribespeople in the high desert of the Sudan.) (E-Prime is English without the verb "to be".).....MuKraken, 7-2002
Comment from the Aristocrat on his 50th birthday:
When I was first introduced to the Metaphysics Anonymous group, I was asked to describe myself, in terms of identity and my beliefs. I distinctly remember claiming to be a shaman, with a touch of nihilistic Dadaism. I claimed no scientific background. I was accepted into the group, possibly because I was still breathing, and because I could "entertain a thought" as yet personally unheard.
The result of my involvement, since 1985, has been more than beneficial. I have developed some friendships, seen others drop to the wayside, and have read and learned in ways I had never thought possible, which might best be seen as osmosis. As to my three initial self-descriptions, I feel I have out grown them all...
"Metaphysics Anonymous" may be one of the greatest oxymorons of all time. Still we trudge on. We were all raised monotheisticly, I assume. The very concept of Creator points to cause, a how and a why. I was taught to call that Love. But love can run hot or cold. The Church conjures images of puppy dogs and flowers. Science has its sterile labs and experiments. But each are more than that.
I'm dimly aware of the many-worlds model, and the alternative-canceling characteristic of "consensus reality". The view that Spinoza's God increases as universe increases is comfortable. But we've, humanity that is, yet to agree on a seamless definition of God. Lennon said: "God is a concept, by which we measure our pain". But what is intelligence? Will the how foretell the why? Does the why always point to the how? I saw David Copperfield disappear from the stage and reappear in the audience. I don't doubt that he's a magician. But he's not going to tell me how, though I know why. It was simply entertaining.
Who, what, when, where, how and why. I wonder, though, if a merging of physics and metaphysics can ever occur. Unless it already has. I've learned that time and space are really space/time, one thing, mutually dependent. We know of the mutually dependent relationship in evolution between the environment and the organism. But how often do we look about and see our neighbors as environment/organisms. Seeing the whole kalideoscope takes a big mind. We are still chipping out the pieces. As we hack away at reality, smaller pieces are added to the mix. It boggles the mind to think of the complexity. Now I see why it is said that a little information can be a terrible thing. Metaphysics Anonymous remains the only group I know, beside the others like us, that is still trying to make sense of it all. Harrowing as it can be, it still beats being blind to the truth. Shall we continue to call a spade a spade? If we ever get to the point where we call a heart a club, I'm out. I will only agree that they are all cards, if we include diamonds. ...Aristocat, 7-2002
[Staloff] "Quine's Ontological Relativism and the end of 'Philosophy'" Darren Staloff, Phd. videotaped lecture in "Modernism and the Age of Analysis" part of "Great Minds ofthe Western Intellectual Tradition"