Über die unüberwundenen Begründungsdefizite der „Kritischen Theorie“ – Von Habermas zu Forst

U. Steinhoff
{"title":"Über die unüberwundenen Begründungsdefizite der „Kritischen Theorie“ – Von Habermas zu Forst","authors":"U. Steinhoff","doi":"10.1515/zksp-2015-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the first part of this paper I argue that there is hardly one correct step within the chains of arguments by which Habermas tries to substantiate his theory of communicative action, discourse ethics, and his theory of social order. In the second part of the paper I address Rainer Forst’s “principle of justification,” from which he seeks to deduce his ‘right to justification’ on which a “right to justification” is supposed to be based. I argue that Forst himself does not really justify his views but instead offersmerely unwarranted stipulations.Moreover, I demonstrate that his theory is unclear, incoherent, inapplicable, and thus practically irrelevant.","PeriodicalId":250691,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zksp-2015-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In the first part of this paper I argue that there is hardly one correct step within the chains of arguments by which Habermas tries to substantiate his theory of communicative action, discourse ethics, and his theory of social order. In the second part of the paper I address Rainer Forst’s “principle of justification,” from which he seeks to deduce his ‘right to justification’ on which a “right to justification” is supposed to be based. I argue that Forst himself does not really justify his views but instead offersmerely unwarranted stipulations.Moreover, I demonstrate that his theory is unclear, incoherent, inapplicable, and thus practically irrelevant.
从哈巴马斯到弗莱切
在本文的第一部分,我认为在哈贝马斯试图证明他的交往行为理论、话语伦理理论和社会秩序理论的论证链中,几乎没有一个正确的步骤。在本文的第二部分,我讨论了Rainer Forst的“正当性原则”,他试图从中推断出他的“正当性权利”,而“正当性权利”应该是基于此的。我认为,福斯特本人并没有真正证明他的观点是正确的,而只是提出了一些毫无根据的规定。此外,我证明了他的理论是不清楚的、不连贯的、不适用的,因此实际上是不相关的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信