Read Habermas

[Anonymous No.22404239]

[Anonymous No.22404299]

>>22404239
I intend to reaf his The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society but he acted like such a prissy faggot during the Historikerstreit lmao

[Anonymous No.22404316]

no

[Anonymous No.22404418]

>>22404239
I think I did in school. recognize the name

[Anonymous No.22404475]

>>22404239
Already did (TCA, in its entirety. Yes, really, AMA). Very dull and its central idea that humans can rationally deliberate with each other is false. That's an extreme over simplification, but it isn't too far off base. He has unwarranted and frankly stupid optimism where humans are concerned, and he really should have known better: he was a young teenager when WWII ended, and he completed the above work at a period in history when nuclear weapon stockpiles were at an all-time high (he even notes the threat of nuclear war in his intro). All the evidence points toward humans being irremediable shits and he holds out hope. Stupid.

Nor is the above meant to stick up for stupid forms of government like socialism, fascism and so on, like so many stupid users of this board like to do. Politically, Habermas is correct (somewhere in liberal territory). My point is that his optimism and constructive systematizing are futile.

[Anonymous No.22404489]

>>22404299
A fellow wikipedia enjoyer?

[Anonymous No.22404714]

>>22404489
Yes. Imagine being a professional historian and behaving like that

[Anonymous No.22404723]

>>22404316
He always sides with the winner and he always does it when it safe. So boring!

[Anonymous No.22404769]

>>22404239
>>22404316
what's the deal with his nose?

[Anonymous No.22405009]

Habermass and ardent and polyani are such overated fucking garbage.

[Anonymous No.22405142]

>>22404239
I did and he is retarded and overrated piece of hypocrite hack.
t. philosophy major

[Anonymous No.22405145]

>>22404239
I did read his brick about modernism and it was boring as hell - also he was cocacolonized by the US (ie, he went full garbage).

[Anonymous No.22405206]

>>22404769
Cleft palate. Nose is just tribe.

[Anonymous No.22405657]

>>22404475
do you think that TCA has any important prerequisites? can i just read it like that? i know that he apparently spends much time on going through several sociologists but i'm interested in the history of sociology either way

[Anonymous No.22406167]

>>22405657

Sociology itself wasn't THAT interesting to me, which makes me a very strange duck for having read it. I will describe two tracks. I will describe the background reading that I myself did before reading the thing, and then I will describe the literature that he discusses in the work itself. Probably the main value in reading the thing is that it makes me want to check out other sociologists at some point, although this is a personal low priority.

I recognized that TCA was a very dense and (relatively) difficult work, one which would absolutely require some background before I could just read the thing. So in addition to my existing moderate, undergrad-tier philosophical background, I re-read Austin's very short How To Do Things With Words, and then I also read Habermas' Public Sphere book (which was more interesting IMO) mainly to get a sense of his style and the sort of thing he likes to discuss, what he's all about, etc. I think maybe I read one or two other short things in prep for TCA but those were the main two. The Austin thing was just a personal choice and it really isn't that relevant except for general discussion of uses of language. Reading the Public Sphere book first isn't a bad idea, it's an interesting read in itself and it gives you the flavor of his academic style (the prose itself is nice, in English anyway).

The content of TCA is just this long review of sociologists and philosophers that he finds interesting or relevant. He compares and contrasts their various pet interests, and he periodically inserts his thesis statement, which more-or-less says that "communicative action is a slightly better/more desirable way of interpreting/understanding human interactions". That's again a bit off, I just can't think quite how to rephrase it at the moment (describing reality vs. normative/"should" statements). The main sociologists that he engages with are Weber, Mead, Durkheim, (more recently) Talcott Parsons, and of course Marx. There's also this sort of "aesthetic" chapter in the middle where he goes over Lukacs and Adorno for cred but IIRC that bit just sort of stands alone and doesn't relate too much to the sociological throughline of the work. Where Weber is concerned, it's more The Sacred than prot work ethic.

He's very verbose, but the sections are also very organized, and every few pages he'll go "okay we've been doing this for five or ten pages, now let's pivot to this other thing". None of the patent nonsense of the frogs, at least.

Lots of autistic charts differentiating the true/good/beautiful in various departments of life.

Although dull, if he has any value as an author, it consists in annoying the sorts of stupids

>>22405009
>>22405142
>>22405145

who frequent this board and play at communism or fascism, as I noted above. To the latter complaint, IIRC he wrote some sort of (soft) complaint piece against the US shortly after the 2003 Iraq invasion, claiming that the US had burned its credibility.

[Anonymous No.22406175]

>>22404239
Heard he took the Frankfurt School and declawed it. How true is that?

[Anonymous No.22406194]

>>22406175
FF never had any claws and if anyone declawed it that was Adorno's complete submission to the US.

[Anonymous No.22406256]

Sociologists can seriously fuck off and die. I don't mean weber and I dont mean C. Wright Mills but I sure as shit DO mean the dime a dozen "sociologists" today who are EVERYWHERE
>society is unequal!!!!!!!
>maybe gay transgender lesbian witches should be more represented everywhere for "equality"
>let's destroy all institutions because they're old

Fuck right off faggots.

[Anonymous No.22406343]

>>22406167
I see, thank you for the post. I actually read a bit of „Future of Human Nature“ and actually liked his prose. I‘d consider it well-packed but not „muddy“ at all; will read the thing completely soon. I have no proper philosophical education, but I might just read TCA after reading 3 of Habermas‘ other works and an „introduction“. (He published a follow-up to Public Sphere btw, not sure if it‘s translated though.)

[Anonymous No.22406349]

>>22406256
true and the frankfurt school really does boil down to this

[Anonymous No.22406382]

>>22406256
>>22406349
Go back to /pol/. You know shit about sociology and are probably also not aware that even in the BRD there were sociologists on the opposite side of Adorno such as Gehlen, Schelsky etc.

Just like the „marxist“ Adorno and the „conservative“ Gehlen debated on the role of sociology there was also the Habermas-Luhmann controversy. It’s a varied field — at least outside of the USA. But you people don‘t care about anything besides polemics.

[Anonymous No.22406391]

>>22406382
You're correct I do not care about any of these masturbatory non-troverseries. You're incorrect about my being a pol nazi. Please enjoy your masterbatory non-debates from these irrelevant fucking people. Call me a phillistine I don't care.

[Anonymous No.22406403]

>>22406391
You‘re so based and cool for being proud of your own apathy and sperging out in threads about topics you don‘t care about on a literature board.

[Anonymous No.22406409]

>>22406403
Thanks. I can not imagine what you thought you were achieving by responding to me.

[Anonymous No.22406417]

Btw the social sciences are all rubbish. There's been no actual advance on strict empiricism whatsoever. Sociology wrapped itself up over about a hundred years from 1870 to 1970 same with all the social sciences. Lots and lots of hot air repackaged empiricism. Fucking yawn to death.

[Anonymous No.22406424]

>>22406409
>I can not imagine what you thought you were achieving by responding to me.
Nothing, stupid American imbecile, but I am pleased as long the thread gets bumped.

>>22406417
>There's been no actual advance on strict empiricism whatsoever.
I spit on Americans autistic fixation on empiricism, go to hell. Yawn.

[Anonymous No.22406425]

>>22405009
Michael Polanyi yes, Karl no

[Anonymous No.22406430]

>>22406425
20th century historical developments holy fucking shit!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.22406432]

>>22406424
Keep projecting. How dare I tell you the absolute truth that empiricism has never been surpassed. This drives modern social scientists INSANE since of course they're just empiricists with overly pedantic introductions

[Anonymous No.22406433]

>>22405009
>>22406425
>>22406430
why the hate for Polanyi?

[Anonymous No.22406437]

>>22406433
Basically he's considered foundational for 20th century political thought and I don't understand why. Just read Hobsbawm, he's much better.

[Anonymous No.22406439]

>>22406437
That's not true I do understand why it's sociologists jerking eachother off AGAIN

[Anonymous No.22406453]

Let's do some EMPIRICAL RESEARCH social science faggots. How many of you have read this book?

[Anonymous No.22406456]

>>22406453
My HYPOTHESIS of course is 100% of you have since it's the most important sociological history ever written. Looking firward to having my prediction COMPLETELY VALIDATED by the outstanding social scientists on this board who are intimately familiar with the basic foundations of sociology and historical socio-economy.

[Anonymous No.22406466]

>>22406453
>>22406456
Weber is still widely read and used by (German) sociologists.

[Anonymous No.22406471]

>>22406466
I didn't say Weber, I said, The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations.

[Anonymous No.22406526]

>>22406453
I actually have it on my wishlist

[Anonymous No.22406527]

>>22406424
>stupid American imbecile
American website. You’re free to make your own.

[Anonymous No.22406529]

>>22406194
I don’t think most of us believe that human relationships are currency exchanges. It’s a lot more subjective than that. Adorno just had a typical autistic German concept of human behavior.

[Anonymous No.22406803]

>>22404299
>The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society
It was very informative on new media that occurred after the 16th-century. Maybe westerners know it from general knowledge, but it really helps see why West Evropa was the driver of modernity and how it transformed the everyday informative life of the average person.

[Anonymous No.22406813]

>>22404239
>nonfiction
No, thank you. I don't think I will. I will die sooner than I think and I don't want to waste my time on things that have happened or commentary on things that do happen. Real things happen to me constantly. I can comment on them myself. No thanks.

[Anonymous No.22406820]

you have to be a retard to read Habermas

[Anonymous No.22406882]

>>22404239
eurocrat regime clown

[Anonymous No.22408055]

Sociologists get rekt

[Anonymous No.22408393]

>>22404239
After performing a physiognomy check I decided I will not be reading Habermas

[Anonymous No.22408753]

>>22404239
>Habermas does a superficial analysis of the relationship between technology and politics. He is content with arguments like: "the orientation of technological progress depends on public investments," hence on politics. He seems to be totally unaware of dozens of studies (including Galbraith's or mine) showing the subordination of political decisions to technological imperatives. He winds up with the elementary wish to "get hold of technology again" and "place it under the control of public opinion . . . reintegrate it within the consensus of the citizens.” The matter is, alas, a wee bit more complicated; likewise, when he contrasts the technocratic schema with the decision-making schema. To grasp the interaction, he ought to study L. Sfez (Critique de la décision, 1974). And Habermas's discussion of the "pragmatic model" is along the lines of a pious hope, a wish: the process of scientification of politics, such as appears desirable to him, is a "must.” But the reality of this technicization of politics actually occurs on a different model! Habermas poses the philosophical problem honesty: The true problem is to know if, having reached a certain level of knowledge capable of bringing certain consequences, one is content to put that knowledge at the disposal of men involved in technological manipulations, or whether one wants men communicating among themselves to retake possession of that knowledge in their very language. But Habermas poses the problem outside of any reality. When reading this text, we need only ask: Who is that "one" who puts technology at the disposal of either group? Who exercises this (if you like) supreme “will”?

[Anonymous No.22408936]

>>22406882
>Habermas has been an energetic advocate of an ideological project that aims to distance people from their national communities. One of the ways in which this project is pursued is through the advocacy of identity politics and the rights of minorities, which are promoted at the expense of the right of nations to self-determination. He is an enthusiastic proponent of social and cultural identities that stand in opposition to, or are decoupled from, national sentiments and traditions. His preference is for identities that are ‘post-traditional’ and ‘post-national’.
>Habermas regards concepts like ‘the people’ or ‘the nation’ as a dangerous fantasy used by ‘right wing populism’ to undermine diversity. He explains his antipathy to national consciousness in the following terms: After half a century of labour immigration, even the European peoples, given their ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity, can no longer be conceived as culturally homogeneous entities.

[Anonymous No.22408945]

>>22406882
>>22408936
>Habermas’ preference is for what he calls a ‘constructivist perspective’ relies on constructed norms to reign in and tame the traditional values of citizens. His language often communicates a paternalistic social engineering ambition, which is justified through the idiom of a civilizing mission: he assigns to the EU the role of a ‘civilizing state power’.

[Anonymous No.22408949]

>>22406882
>>22408936
>>22408945
>Habermas regards concepts like ‘the people’ or ‘the nation’ as a dangerous fantasy used by ‘right wing populism’ to undermine diversity. He explains his antipathy to national consciousness in the following terms: After half a century of labour immigration, even the European peoples, given their ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity, can no longer be conceived as culturally homogeneous entities.

[Anonymous No.22409041]

demonstrably correct if you're not a chud

[Anonymous No.22409073]

I get strong r/askphilosophy vibes ITT

[Anonymous No.22409098]

>>22406466
>*innen
I hate Germany so fucking much. I hope every Sören and every Annika dies in the worst way possible.