Communication and content: Circumstances and consequences of the Habermas-Brandom debate
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (1):43 – 61 (2003)
Abstract
The recent exchange between Robert Brandom and Jürgen Habermas provides an opportunity to compare and contrast some aspects of their systems. Both present broadly inferential accounts of meaning, according to which the content of an expression is determined by its role in an inferential network. Several problems confront such theories of meaning - one of which threatens the possibility of communication because content is relative to an individual's set of beliefs. Brandom acknowledges this problem and provides a solution to it. The point of this paper is to argue that it arises for Habermas's theory as well. I then present several solutions Habermas could adopt and evaluate their feasibility. The result is that Habermas must alter his theory of communicative action by contextualizing the standards for successful communication.Author's Profile
DOI
10.1080/0967255032000050439
My notes
Similar books and articles
Scorekeeping in a Defective Language Game.Kevin A. Scharp - 2005 - Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (1):203-226.
Inferentialism and communicative action: Robust conceptions of intersubjectivity.Barbara Fultner - 2002 - Philosophical Studies 108 (1-2):121 - 131.
Intersubjectivity – interactionist or discursive? Reflections on habermas’ critique of Brandom.Piet Strydom - 2006 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 32 (2):155-172.
Criticism and normativity. Brandom and Habermas between Kant and Hegel.Italo Testa - 2009 - In D. Canale G. Tuzet (ed.), The Rules of Inference. Inferentialism in Law and Philosophy, Egea, Milano. Egea (pp. pp. 29-44).
Brandom on Communication.Kevin Scharp - forthcoming - In Jason Hannon & Robert Rutland (eds.), Philosophical Profiles in the Theory of Communication. McGill-Queen's University Press.
Robert Brandom on Communication, Reference, and Objectivity.Bernd Prien - 2010 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (3):433-458.
Freedom of communicative action.Lawrence B. Solum - 1989 - Northwestern University Law Review 83 (1):54-135.
From the Second to the Third Person and Back Again: Habermas and Brandom on Discursive Practice.Steven Hendley - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Research 30:169-188.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
65 (#185,783)
6 months
2 (#300,121)
2009-01-28
Downloads
65 (#185,783)
6 months
2 (#300,121)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Robert Brandom on Communication, Reference, and Objectivity.Bernd Prien - 2010 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (3):433-458.
Reason and power: Difference, structural implication, and political transformation.James Trafford - 2019 - Contemporary Political Theory 18 (2):227-247.
Jeux dialogiques et processus discursif. Conséquences du débat entre Habermas et Brandom.Yaël Sebban - 2020 - Dialogue 59 (2):305-344.
A study of the notion of medium through the philosophy of American metaphysician Wilfrid Sellars.Silvia Mollicchi - 2018 - Dissertation, University of Warwick
References found in this work
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.Jürgen Habermas (ed.) - 1996 - Polity.
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy.Frank I. Michelman & Jurgen Habermas - 1996 - Journal of Philosophy 93 (6):307.