Philosophy and discourse of war: conflict of worlds as the limit of Jurgen Habermas’s communicative theory

Yevhen Bystrytsky, L. Sytnichenko
{"title":"Philosophy and discourse of war: conflict of worlds as the limit of Jurgen Habermas’s communicative theory","authors":"Yevhen Bystrytsky, L. Sytnichenko","doi":"10.15407/fd2022.03.064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is a philosophical response to the oped of the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas Krieg und Empörung, published by him in the Süddeutsche Zeitung in April 2022. The oped demonstrates the philosopher’s view on ideological disputes and political debates or “indignation” (Empörung) in public sphere in both Germany and the EU concerning an attempt to develop a unanimous policy to help Ukraine with weapons against Russia’s military aggression. The authors presume that Habermas published the accountable message of a responsible citizen that means it should be also taken as based on his theoretical achievements. The article consists of two parts. The first part sets out the main arguments of the philosopher’s newspaper article, which ends with a recommendation of compromise and partnership negotiations with the aggressor de facto due to the losses of Ukraine. The second part is an attempt by the authors to clarify the main preconditions and premises of Habermas’s communicative philosophy, which demonstrate the fundamental limitation of its explanatory power for this type of radical dissent, which is war. First of all, the authors suggest, it is the idea of pacification in interethnic relations, which forms the intellectual mood after World War II and finds its philosophical expression in the discovery of a priori foundations of understanding (Apel, Habermas) and ideas of developing formal pragmatics of communication. Attention to the latter allows the authors to demonstrate how consistent analysis of a priori (counterfactual) conditions of communication is considered by Habermas primarily in the historical perspective of positive dimensions of social integration - democratic equality, freedom, justice for participants of communicative interaction. The article concludes with a detailed analysis of the significance of the concept “lifeworld” as one of the central concepts within communicative theory and an analogue of “form of life” and “culture”. The authors argue the idea of perspective creating a common lifeworld for all in the processes of communication is fundamental to the works of the philosopher. The article concludes that the regulative idea of the single world as a basic ontological assumption of communicative theory does limit its explanatory capacity in terms of a war situation as a clash of different cultural worlds.","PeriodicalId":315902,"journal":{"name":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2022.03.064","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

The article is a philosophical response to the oped of the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas Krieg und Empörung, published by him in the Süddeutsche Zeitung in April 2022. The oped demonstrates the philosopher’s view on ideological disputes and political debates or “indignation” (Empörung) in public sphere in both Germany and the EU concerning an attempt to develop a unanimous policy to help Ukraine with weapons against Russia’s military aggression. The authors presume that Habermas published the accountable message of a responsible citizen that means it should be also taken as based on his theoretical achievements. The article consists of two parts. The first part sets out the main arguments of the philosopher’s newspaper article, which ends with a recommendation of compromise and partnership negotiations with the aggressor de facto due to the losses of Ukraine. The second part is an attempt by the authors to clarify the main preconditions and premises of Habermas’s communicative philosophy, which demonstrate the fundamental limitation of its explanatory power for this type of radical dissent, which is war. First of all, the authors suggest, it is the idea of pacification in interethnic relations, which forms the intellectual mood after World War II and finds its philosophical expression in the discovery of a priori foundations of understanding (Apel, Habermas) and ideas of developing formal pragmatics of communication. Attention to the latter allows the authors to demonstrate how consistent analysis of a priori (counterfactual) conditions of communication is considered by Habermas primarily in the historical perspective of positive dimensions of social integration - democratic equality, freedom, justice for participants of communicative interaction. The article concludes with a detailed analysis of the significance of the concept “lifeworld” as one of the central concepts within communicative theory and an analogue of “form of life” and “culture”. The authors argue the idea of perspective creating a common lifeworld for all in the processes of communication is fundamental to the works of the philosopher. The article concludes that the regulative idea of the single world as a basic ontological assumption of communicative theory does limit its explanatory capacity in terms of a war situation as a clash of different cultural worlds.
哲学与战争话语:作为哈贝马斯交往理论极限的世界冲突
这篇文章是对德国哲学家约尔根·哈贝马斯·克里格(jergen Habermas Krieg)于2022年4月在《德意志日报》(ddeutsche Zeitung)上发表的专栏文章Empörung的哲学回应。这篇专栏文章展示了哲学家对德国和欧盟公共领域的意识形态争议和政治辩论或“愤慨”(Empörung)的看法,这些争论涉及试图制定一致的政策,帮助乌克兰用武器对抗俄罗斯的军事侵略。作者认为,哈贝马斯发表了一个负责任的公民的负责信息,这意味着它也应该被视为基于他的理论成就。本文由两部分组成。第一部分列出了这位哲学家在报纸上的文章的主要论点,由于乌克兰的损失,文章以与事实上的侵略者妥协和伙伴关系谈判的建议结束。第二部分是作者试图澄清哈贝马斯交往哲学的主要前提和前提,这表明哈贝马斯交往哲学对这种激进的异议即战争的解释力存在根本性的局限性。首先,作者认为,在第二次世界大战后形成了知识分子情绪的是种族间关系的和解思想,它在发现理解的先验基础(阿佩尔、哈贝马斯)和发展交际的形式语用学思想中得到了哲学上的表达。对后者的关注使作者能够证明,哈贝马斯主要是从社会整合的积极维度的历史视角——民主平等、自由、交流互动参与者的正义——来考虑对交流的先验(反事实)条件的一致分析。文章最后详细分析了“生活世界”概念作为交际理论的核心概念之一,与“生活形式”和“文化”类似的意义。作者认为,在交流过程中为所有人创造一个共同的生活世界的观点是哲学家作品的基础。本文的结论是,作为交际理论的基本本体论假设,单一世界的调节观念确实限制了它在作为不同文化世界冲突的战争情境中的解释能力。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信