{"title":"给我的朋友理查德·J·伯恩斯坦","authors":"Jürgen Habermas","doi":"10.1111/1467-8675.12656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>It was nearly 50 years ago when Dick called me for the first time and invited me to come over to Haverford for a discussion. It is not only because of the beginning of our longstanding friendship that I start with that phone call I got in 1972 at the Humanities Center of Cornell University. It moreover led, at this first encounter, to a memorable and rather improbable discovery. The two of us had been brought up on different continents and in different societies, with different backgrounds at different schools and different universities, not to speak of a childhood and youth we spent on opposite sides of a monstrous World War, in which Dick had lost a brother; but in spite of all of these obvious distances in origin and socialization we soon discovered a broad overlap in our philosophical background and also in our present research interests. Hegel, Marx and Kierkegaard, Sartre and existentialism, even Peirce and Dewey and our present research programs in action theory and communication are the catch words to indicate this unexpected convergence of our philosophical orientations. And my surprise was soon confirmed when I read Dick's book <i>Praxis and Action</i> which I immediately recommended to Suhrkamp for translation.</p><p>However, the discovery of these <i>intellectual</i> family bonds is only half of the story; I would not have accepted the invitation to come to Haverford with Ute and our two daughters for a whole term, had Dick not been the impressive personality he indeed was—a host of overwhelming charm and an open-minded, spontaneous and inspiring partner in the ongoing ping-pong of arguments. Throughout the following years and decades, I got to know him as a sharp-minded, engaged and dedicated philosopher and teacher, as an attentive, sensitive and loyal friend and as a mind of great fairness and courage who got angry and immediately spoke up when he felt that somebody was not treated in the right way. And yet, even this friendship would not have flourished for such a long time if it had not been embedded in the broader context of relations between our families.</p><p>We enjoyed Carol's hospitality in her wide-open house, whether the families met at home—I remember our shy Judith dancing with little Daniel along the floor—or whether we were introduced to quite a few distinguished and interesting guests at dinner, first in Haverford, but in the same style later on at the upper Eastside in Manhattan or in the Adirondacks—where Dick finally spent his last days. During those memorable evenings, we met for example Jacques Derrida or Geoffrey Hartmann, or colleagues from Israel and elsewhere, who were teaching at the New School. By the way, this generous hospitality of the Bernsteins also included my son Tilmann and, my daughter, Rebekka, when they spent a year at the New School as Theodor Heuss professors. The visits were, of course, mutual: Dick has taught in Frankfurt several times; and I remember a last visit with him and Carol in Munich where he gave his great course on pragmatism; the final evening session was open to the public of the city, while the two of us were sitting at the podium, and Dick presented himself in his most admirable role. Many will remember: While he was passionately teaching the major lines of the most radical democratic traditions of the United States, the teacher himself turned into the best embodiment of what he was actually teaching—and sometimes even preaching.</p><p>Though I cannot go into the details of Dick's philosophical work in this context, let me at least mention three of his most remarkable achievements. He merits recognition (a) for the revival of pragmatism, (b) for using hermeneutics as a bridge for the analytical-continental divide and (c) for continuing the great tradition of the New School.</p><p>(a) Today, American pragmatism is present in philosophy departments all over the world. In the first half of the 20th century, Charles Sanders Peirce and William James and moreover John Dewey had been recognized as leading philosophers at least in the United States. But when I traveled through philosophy departments of prominent American Universities by the mid-sixties, this was no longer the case. At that time, most of my colleagues thought of Dewey as a “fuzzy thinker.” Most of the departments were under the impact of either the neo-positivism of Rudolf Carnap and the immigrants from the Vienna School or of Wittgenstein and the British analytical philosophy of language. Only against the background of those prevailing trends can one imagine and appreciate what it meant for these two friends, Dick Bernstein and Dick Rorty, to initiate a shift. Their insistent arguments contributed to a revival of pragmatism, which finally gained a second chance against the exclusive dominance of these other analytical approaches (which, to be honest, <i>had</i> indeed improved the standards of argumentation in the meantime).</p><p>(b) Apart from this success in the promotion of pragmatism and its very American roots in transcendentalism, Dick's philosophy reveals another remarkable feature: I mean his intense interest in the tradition of hermeneutics. His effort to get attention for this rather continental tradition and especially his admiration for the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer and his critics may be explained by the fact that Dick himself was a genius in the art of “Verstehen” or interpretation. This sensitivity for taking seriously the prima facie truth claims of a text was part of his general sense of fairness; in advance of any attempt of refutation he insisted on the obligation to track down the kernel of truth even in face of odd authors and texts, of strange traditions and arguments. This respect for, and devotion to the meaning of a text did not prevent him, however, to turn to the truth of the matter and to insist on differences “that make a difference,” as he repeated many times. This combination <i>of</i> generosity in the interpretation of meaning and of <i>strictness</i> in questions of truth characterizes the quality of Dick's philosophical work.</p><p>(c) Finally, Hannah Arendt and the New School are the most important chapter in Dick's philosophical career. He had met her, shortly before she died, and was deeply impressed by her strong personality. When he was offered then to become her successor at the New School, he hurried back to New York, the city of his birth. It is not easy to do justice to the happy coincidence of the various aspects of this decisive turn in Dick's professional life. There was his admiration for Hannah Arendt's person and work, his familiarity with her German philosophical background and German philosophy in general, and last but not least, his sensitivity for the impact of political immigration on these philosophers’ experience—and these features now met with the challenging task that expected him in the Philosophy Department of the New School, of that unique university, which during the Nazi period, had been a haven for so many of the most important European scholars in exile. When I was teaching at the New School in 1967, I still had the privilege to meet the last Generation of those immigrants—besides Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Aaron Gurvitch, Adolf Löwe, and others—and to immerse ourselves in the unique atmosphere of this incomparable place. I am deeply convinced that nobody but Dick Bernstein would have been able to continue, by cautious steps of transformation, the profile and the spirit of that very tradition for another four, almost, five decades. And especially German universities and the German Government owe him gratitude for this particular professional and political engagement, which of course, only mirrored the deeper motivation of his extraordinary philosophical thought and practice.</p><p>Looking back at Dick's biography allows us to state, in the cautious words of Adorno, that such a life is not a failed one.</p>","PeriodicalId":51578,"journal":{"name":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12656","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"For my friend Richard J. Bernstein\",\"authors\":\"Jürgen Habermas\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-8675.12656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>It was nearly 50 years ago when Dick called me for the first time and invited me to come over to Haverford for a discussion. It is not only because of the beginning of our longstanding friendship that I start with that phone call I got in 1972 at the Humanities Center of Cornell University. It moreover led, at this first encounter, to a memorable and rather improbable discovery. The two of us had been brought up on different continents and in different societies, with different backgrounds at different schools and different universities, not to speak of a childhood and youth we spent on opposite sides of a monstrous World War, in which Dick had lost a brother; but in spite of all of these obvious distances in origin and socialization we soon discovered a broad overlap in our philosophical background and also in our present research interests. Hegel, Marx and Kierkegaard, Sartre and existentialism, even Peirce and Dewey and our present research programs in action theory and communication are the catch words to indicate this unexpected convergence of our philosophical orientations. And my surprise was soon confirmed when I read Dick's book <i>Praxis and Action</i> which I immediately recommended to Suhrkamp for translation.</p><p>However, the discovery of these <i>intellectual</i> family bonds is only half of the story; I would not have accepted the invitation to come to Haverford with Ute and our two daughters for a whole term, had Dick not been the impressive personality he indeed was—a host of overwhelming charm and an open-minded, spontaneous and inspiring partner in the ongoing ping-pong of arguments. Throughout the following years and decades, I got to know him as a sharp-minded, engaged and dedicated philosopher and teacher, as an attentive, sensitive and loyal friend and as a mind of great fairness and courage who got angry and immediately spoke up when he felt that somebody was not treated in the right way. And yet, even this friendship would not have flourished for such a long time if it had not been embedded in the broader context of relations between our families.</p><p>We enjoyed Carol's hospitality in her wide-open house, whether the families met at home—I remember our shy Judith dancing with little Daniel along the floor—or whether we were introduced to quite a few distinguished and interesting guests at dinner, first in Haverford, but in the same style later on at the upper Eastside in Manhattan or in the Adirondacks—where Dick finally spent his last days. During those memorable evenings, we met for example Jacques Derrida or Geoffrey Hartmann, or colleagues from Israel and elsewhere, who were teaching at the New School. By the way, this generous hospitality of the Bernsteins also included my son Tilmann and, my daughter, Rebekka, when they spent a year at the New School as Theodor Heuss professors. The visits were, of course, mutual: Dick has taught in Frankfurt several times; and I remember a last visit with him and Carol in Munich where he gave his great course on pragmatism; the final evening session was open to the public of the city, while the two of us were sitting at the podium, and Dick presented himself in his most admirable role. Many will remember: While he was passionately teaching the major lines of the most radical democratic traditions of the United States, the teacher himself turned into the best embodiment of what he was actually teaching—and sometimes even preaching.</p><p>Though I cannot go into the details of Dick's philosophical work in this context, let me at least mention three of his most remarkable achievements. He merits recognition (a) for the revival of pragmatism, (b) for using hermeneutics as a bridge for the analytical-continental divide and (c) for continuing the great tradition of the New School.</p><p>(a) Today, American pragmatism is present in philosophy departments all over the world. In the first half of the 20th century, Charles Sanders Peirce and William James and moreover John Dewey had been recognized as leading philosophers at least in the United States. But when I traveled through philosophy departments of prominent American Universities by the mid-sixties, this was no longer the case. At that time, most of my colleagues thought of Dewey as a “fuzzy thinker.” Most of the departments were under the impact of either the neo-positivism of Rudolf Carnap and the immigrants from the Vienna School or of Wittgenstein and the British analytical philosophy of language. Only against the background of those prevailing trends can one imagine and appreciate what it meant for these two friends, Dick Bernstein and Dick Rorty, to initiate a shift. Their insistent arguments contributed to a revival of pragmatism, which finally gained a second chance against the exclusive dominance of these other analytical approaches (which, to be honest, <i>had</i> indeed improved the standards of argumentation in the meantime).</p><p>(b) Apart from this success in the promotion of pragmatism and its very American roots in transcendentalism, Dick's philosophy reveals another remarkable feature: I mean his intense interest in the tradition of hermeneutics. His effort to get attention for this rather continental tradition and especially his admiration for the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer and his critics may be explained by the fact that Dick himself was a genius in the art of “Verstehen” or interpretation. This sensitivity for taking seriously the prima facie truth claims of a text was part of his general sense of fairness; in advance of any attempt of refutation he insisted on the obligation to track down the kernel of truth even in face of odd authors and texts, of strange traditions and arguments. This respect for, and devotion to the meaning of a text did not prevent him, however, to turn to the truth of the matter and to insist on differences “that make a difference,” as he repeated many times. This combination <i>of</i> generosity in the interpretation of meaning and of <i>strictness</i> in questions of truth characterizes the quality of Dick's philosophical work.</p><p>(c) Finally, Hannah Arendt and the New School are the most important chapter in Dick's philosophical career. He had met her, shortly before she died, and was deeply impressed by her strong personality. When he was offered then to become her successor at the New School, he hurried back to New York, the city of his birth. It is not easy to do justice to the happy coincidence of the various aspects of this decisive turn in Dick's professional life. There was his admiration for Hannah Arendt's person and work, his familiarity with her German philosophical background and German philosophy in general, and last but not least, his sensitivity for the impact of political immigration on these philosophers’ experience—and these features now met with the challenging task that expected him in the Philosophy Department of the New School, of that unique university, which during the Nazi period, had been a haven for so many of the most important European scholars in exile. When I was teaching at the New School in 1967, I still had the privilege to meet the last Generation of those immigrants—besides Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Aaron Gurvitch, Adolf Löwe, and others—and to immerse ourselves in the unique atmosphere of this incomparable place. I am deeply convinced that nobody but Dick Bernstein would have been able to continue, by cautious steps of transformation, the profile and the spirit of that very tradition for another four, almost, five decades. And especially German universities and the German Government owe him gratitude for this particular professional and political engagement, which of course, only mirrored the deeper motivation of his extraordinary philosophical thought and practice.</p><p>Looking back at Dick's biography allows us to state, in the cautious words of Adorno, that such a life is not a failed one.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8675.12656\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8675.12656\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constellations-An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8675.12656","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
将近50年前,迪克第一次给我打电话,邀请我到哈弗福德去讨论。1972年,我在康奈尔大学人文中心接到了一个电话,这不仅是我们长期友谊的开端。而且,在这第一次相遇中,它导致了一个令人难忘的、相当不可能的发现。我们两个在不同的大陆和不同的社会中长大,有着不同的背景,上过不同的学校和大学,更不用说我们在残酷的世界大战中各自度过的童年和青年时代了,迪克在那场大战中失去了一个兄弟;但是,尽管在起源和社会化方面有这些明显的距离,我们很快就发现,在我们的哲学背景和我们目前的研究兴趣中,有广泛的重叠。黑格尔、马克思和克尔凯郭尔、萨特和存在主义,甚至皮尔斯和杜威,以及我们目前在行动理论和交流方面的研究项目,都是表明我们哲学取向意外趋同的热门词汇。当我读到迪克的《实践与行动》(practice And Action)这本书时,我的惊讶很快得到了证实,我立即把这本书推荐给了苏尔坎普翻译。然而,这些智力家庭纽带的发现只是故事的一半;我不会接受邀请,带着尤特和我们的两个女儿去哈弗福德待整整一个学期,但迪克确实是一个令人印象深刻的人——他拥有压倒性的魅力,在不断的乒乓辩论中是一个开放、率性和鼓舞人心的伙伴。在接下来的几年和几十年里,我逐渐认识到他是一个头脑敏锐、敬业敬业的哲学家和老师,是一个细心、敏感和忠诚的朋友,是一个非常公正和勇敢的人,当他觉得有人受到不公正的对待时,他会生气并立即说出来。然而,即使是这种友谊,如果不是植根于我们两国家庭关系的更广泛背景中,也不会繁荣这么长时间。不管家人是在家里见面,我们都很享受卡罗尔在她那敞开大门的房子里的款待——我记得害羞的朱迪思和小丹尼尔在地板上跳舞——不管我们是在晚宴上被介绍给几位杰出而有趣的客人,先是在哈弗福德,后来在曼哈顿上东区或阿迪朗达克以同样的方式——迪克最后在那里度过了他最后的日子。在那些难忘的夜晚,我们遇到了雅克·德里达或杰弗里·哈特曼,或者来自以色列和其他地方的同事,他们在新学院任教。顺便说一下,伯恩斯坦一家的慷慨好客还包括我的儿子蒂尔曼和我的女儿丽贝卡,他们在新学院当了一年西奥多·豪斯的教授。当然,这种拜访是相互的:迪克曾在法兰克福教过几次书;我记得最后一次去慕尼黑拜访他和卡罗尔,他在那里开了一堂关于实用主义的大课;最后一场晚上的会议向全市公众开放,我们两人坐在讲台上,迪克以他最令人钦佩的角色出场。许多人会记得:当他充满激情地教授美国最激进的民主传统的主要路线时,这位老师自己变成了他实际教导的最好的化身——有时甚至是说教的化身。虽然我不能在此背景下详细介绍迪克的哲学著作,但至少让我提一下他最显著的三个成就。他值得认可的原因有:(a)实用主义的复兴,(b)使用解释学作为分析-大陆分裂的桥梁,(c)延续了新学派的伟大传统。(a)今天,美国的实用主义出现在世界各地的哲学系。在20世纪上半叶,查尔斯·桑德斯·皮尔斯和威廉·詹姆斯,还有约翰·杜威,至少在美国被认为是主要的哲学家。但是,当我在60年代中期走访美国著名大学的哲学系时,情况已不再是这样了。当时,我的大多数同事认为杜威是一个“模糊思想家”。大多数系受到鲁道夫·卡尔纳普和维也纳学派移民的新实证主义或维特根斯坦和英国语言分析哲学的影响。只有在这些流行趋势的背景下,人们才能想象和理解这两位朋友——迪克·伯恩斯坦和迪克·罗蒂——发起这种转变意味着什么。他们坚持不懈的论证促成了实用主义的复兴,实用主义最终获得了第二次机会,反对这些其他分析方法的排他性统治地位(老实说,这些分析方法确实提高了论证的标准)。 (b)除了成功地推广实用主义及其在超验主义中的美国根源之外,迪克的哲学还揭示了另一个显著特征:我指的是他对解释学传统的强烈兴趣。他努力吸引人们对这一颇具大陆特色的传统的关注,尤其是他对汉斯-乔治·伽达默尔及其批评者的作品的钦佩,这可能是因为迪克本人是“翻译”艺术方面的天才。这种认真对待文本的表面真理主张的敏感性是他一般公平感的一部分;在任何反驳的尝试之前,他坚持有义务追寻真理的核心,即使面对奇怪的作者和文本,奇怪的传统和论点。然而,这种对文本意义的尊重和奉献并没有阻止他转向问题的真相,并坚持“产生差异”的差异,正如他多次重复的那样。(c)最后,汉娜·阿伦特和新学派是迪克哲学生涯中最重要的一章。他在她去世前不久见过她,她坚强的个性给他留下了深刻的印象。当他被邀请成为她在新学院的接班人时,他匆匆回到了他出生的城市纽约。要公正地评价迪克职业生涯中这一决定性转折的各个方面的巧合并不容易。他钦佩汉娜·阿伦特的为人和作品,熟悉她的德国哲学背景和德国哲学,最后但并非最不重要的是,他对政治移民对这些哲学家经历的影响的敏感——这些特点现在遇到了新学院哲学系的挑战,这所独特的大学,在纳粹时期,曾是许多流亡在外的欧洲重要学者的避难所。1967年,当我在新学院教书时,我仍然有幸见到了最后一代移民——除了汉娜·阿伦特、汉斯·乔纳斯、亚伦·古维奇、阿道夫Löwe等人——并沉浸在这个无与伦比的地方的独特氛围中。我深信,除了迪克·伯恩斯坦(Dick Bernstein),没有人能够通过谨慎的转型步骤,将这一传统的形象和精神再延续40年,甚至近50年。特别是德国的大学和德国政府应该感谢他的这种特殊的专业和政治参与,当然,这只是反映了他非凡的哲学思想和实践的更深层次的动机。回顾迪克的传记,我们可以用阿多诺谨慎的话说,这样的生活并不是失败的。
It was nearly 50 years ago when Dick called me for the first time and invited me to come over to Haverford for a discussion. It is not only because of the beginning of our longstanding friendship that I start with that phone call I got in 1972 at the Humanities Center of Cornell University. It moreover led, at this first encounter, to a memorable and rather improbable discovery. The two of us had been brought up on different continents and in different societies, with different backgrounds at different schools and different universities, not to speak of a childhood and youth we spent on opposite sides of a monstrous World War, in which Dick had lost a brother; but in spite of all of these obvious distances in origin and socialization we soon discovered a broad overlap in our philosophical background and also in our present research interests. Hegel, Marx and Kierkegaard, Sartre and existentialism, even Peirce and Dewey and our present research programs in action theory and communication are the catch words to indicate this unexpected convergence of our philosophical orientations. And my surprise was soon confirmed when I read Dick's book Praxis and Action which I immediately recommended to Suhrkamp for translation.
However, the discovery of these intellectual family bonds is only half of the story; I would not have accepted the invitation to come to Haverford with Ute and our two daughters for a whole term, had Dick not been the impressive personality he indeed was—a host of overwhelming charm and an open-minded, spontaneous and inspiring partner in the ongoing ping-pong of arguments. Throughout the following years and decades, I got to know him as a sharp-minded, engaged and dedicated philosopher and teacher, as an attentive, sensitive and loyal friend and as a mind of great fairness and courage who got angry and immediately spoke up when he felt that somebody was not treated in the right way. And yet, even this friendship would not have flourished for such a long time if it had not been embedded in the broader context of relations between our families.
We enjoyed Carol's hospitality in her wide-open house, whether the families met at home—I remember our shy Judith dancing with little Daniel along the floor—or whether we were introduced to quite a few distinguished and interesting guests at dinner, first in Haverford, but in the same style later on at the upper Eastside in Manhattan or in the Adirondacks—where Dick finally spent his last days. During those memorable evenings, we met for example Jacques Derrida or Geoffrey Hartmann, or colleagues from Israel and elsewhere, who were teaching at the New School. By the way, this generous hospitality of the Bernsteins also included my son Tilmann and, my daughter, Rebekka, when they spent a year at the New School as Theodor Heuss professors. The visits were, of course, mutual: Dick has taught in Frankfurt several times; and I remember a last visit with him and Carol in Munich where he gave his great course on pragmatism; the final evening session was open to the public of the city, while the two of us were sitting at the podium, and Dick presented himself in his most admirable role. Many will remember: While he was passionately teaching the major lines of the most radical democratic traditions of the United States, the teacher himself turned into the best embodiment of what he was actually teaching—and sometimes even preaching.
Though I cannot go into the details of Dick's philosophical work in this context, let me at least mention three of his most remarkable achievements. He merits recognition (a) for the revival of pragmatism, (b) for using hermeneutics as a bridge for the analytical-continental divide and (c) for continuing the great tradition of the New School.
(a) Today, American pragmatism is present in philosophy departments all over the world. In the first half of the 20th century, Charles Sanders Peirce and William James and moreover John Dewey had been recognized as leading philosophers at least in the United States. But when I traveled through philosophy departments of prominent American Universities by the mid-sixties, this was no longer the case. At that time, most of my colleagues thought of Dewey as a “fuzzy thinker.” Most of the departments were under the impact of either the neo-positivism of Rudolf Carnap and the immigrants from the Vienna School or of Wittgenstein and the British analytical philosophy of language. Only against the background of those prevailing trends can one imagine and appreciate what it meant for these two friends, Dick Bernstein and Dick Rorty, to initiate a shift. Their insistent arguments contributed to a revival of pragmatism, which finally gained a second chance against the exclusive dominance of these other analytical approaches (which, to be honest, had indeed improved the standards of argumentation in the meantime).
(b) Apart from this success in the promotion of pragmatism and its very American roots in transcendentalism, Dick's philosophy reveals another remarkable feature: I mean his intense interest in the tradition of hermeneutics. His effort to get attention for this rather continental tradition and especially his admiration for the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer and his critics may be explained by the fact that Dick himself was a genius in the art of “Verstehen” or interpretation. This sensitivity for taking seriously the prima facie truth claims of a text was part of his general sense of fairness; in advance of any attempt of refutation he insisted on the obligation to track down the kernel of truth even in face of odd authors and texts, of strange traditions and arguments. This respect for, and devotion to the meaning of a text did not prevent him, however, to turn to the truth of the matter and to insist on differences “that make a difference,” as he repeated many times. This combination of generosity in the interpretation of meaning and of strictness in questions of truth characterizes the quality of Dick's philosophical work.
(c) Finally, Hannah Arendt and the New School are the most important chapter in Dick's philosophical career. He had met her, shortly before she died, and was deeply impressed by her strong personality. When he was offered then to become her successor at the New School, he hurried back to New York, the city of his birth. It is not easy to do justice to the happy coincidence of the various aspects of this decisive turn in Dick's professional life. There was his admiration for Hannah Arendt's person and work, his familiarity with her German philosophical background and German philosophy in general, and last but not least, his sensitivity for the impact of political immigration on these philosophers’ experience—and these features now met with the challenging task that expected him in the Philosophy Department of the New School, of that unique university, which during the Nazi period, had been a haven for so many of the most important European scholars in exile. When I was teaching at the New School in 1967, I still had the privilege to meet the last Generation of those immigrants—besides Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Aaron Gurvitch, Adolf Löwe, and others—and to immerse ourselves in the unique atmosphere of this incomparable place. I am deeply convinced that nobody but Dick Bernstein would have been able to continue, by cautious steps of transformation, the profile and the spirit of that very tradition for another four, almost, five decades. And especially German universities and the German Government owe him gratitude for this particular professional and political engagement, which of course, only mirrored the deeper motivation of his extraordinary philosophical thought and practice.
Looking back at Dick's biography allows us to state, in the cautious words of Adorno, that such a life is not a failed one.