How is Dissensus Possible in Consensual Theories? Habermas and Brandom

Abstract

The presentation focuses on the problem of dissensus in Brandom’s and Habermas’ theories of communication and social action. The main questions it raises concern: the concept of dissensus, the main characteristics if it, the possibility of its occurring and indispensable conditions for it. It also claims that Brandom’s account, in opposition to that of Habermas, is more likely to permit rationally based dissensus.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,139

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

My notes

Similar books and articles

Communication and content: Circumstances and consequences of the Habermas-Brandom debate.Kevin Scharp - 2003 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (1):43 – 61.
From the Second to the Third Person and Back Again.Steven Hendley - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Research 30:169-188.
The Limits of Dissensus: The Case of “Intelligent Design”.Andrew Kidd - unknown
Norms of Legitimate Dissensus.Christian Kock - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (2):179-196.
Intersubjectivity – interactionist or discursive? Reflections on habermas’ critique of Brandom.Piet Strydom - 2006 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 32 (2):155-172.
Dissensus as value and practice in cultural argument: The tangled web of argument, con/dis-sensus, values and cultural variations.Michael David Hazen - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa.
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).
Is Common Ground a Word or Just a Sound? Second Order Consensus and Argumentation Theory.Cantù Paola & Testa Italo - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. OSSA.
Inferentialism and communicative action: Robust conceptions of intersubjectivity.Barbara Fultner - 2002 - Philosophical Studies 108 (1-2):121 - 131.
Anticipating objections as a way of coping with dissensus.Ralph H. Johnson - 2007 - In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa.
Brandom’s Pragmatist Inferentialism and the Problem of Objectivity.Ulrich Reichard - 2010 - Philosophical Writings:69-78.
Naar een fenomenologische benadering van de dissensusTowards a Phenomenological Approach to the Dissensus.Arthur Cools - 2005 - Bijdragen 66 (2):179-195.
Dissensus communis : How to keep silent 'after' Lyotard.Rudi Visker - 1995 - In Philippe van Haute & Peg Birmingham (eds.), Dissensus Communis: Between Ethics and Politics. Kok Pharos.
Reconstruction and Pragmatist Metaphysics. On Brandom’s Understanding of Rationality.Italo Testa - 2012 - Verifiche: Rivista Trimestrale di Scienze Umane 41 (1-3):175-201.
Consensus and Dissensus in Science.Robert Ackermann - 1986 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:99 - 105.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-04-02

Downloads
9 (#1,154,504)

6 months
2 (#1,015,942)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tomasz Zarębski
University of Lower Silesia

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Making it Explicit.Isaac Levi & Robert B. Brandom - 1996 - Journal of Philosophy 93 (3):145.

View all 14 references / Add more references