The development of empirical research methods in both the social and the natural sciences has had a deep impact on the self-conception of philosophy. Jürgen Habermas aims to strike a balance between two ways of understanding the relationship between philosophy and the sciences: between a conception of philosophy as an Archimedean point from which to view the human condition and a conception of philosophy as a mere artefact of Western culturally embedded assumptions. Against the first, Habermas (...) aims to integrate the resources and methods of the social sciences into philosophy and to deny that philosophy can proceed outside of historical and social contexts. On his view, philosophical knowledge is produced communicatively, through socially embedded dialogue. Against the second, Habermas claims fundamental questions about the human condition cannot be answered by purely social or natural scientific approaches. His “postmetaphysical” methodology aims to integrate empirical resources into philosophy without losing sight of what is unique to philosophy: namely, its ability to step back from the empirical data in order to reconstruct in a systematic way underlying universal truths about us, our societies and our place in the world. (shrink)

This collection of Habermas's recent essays on philosophical topics continues the analysis begun in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. In a short introductory essay, he outlines the sources of twentieth-century philosophizing, its major themes, and the range of current debates. The remainder of the essays can be seen as his contribution to these debates.Habermas's essay on George Herbert Mead is a focal point of the book. In it he sketches a postmetaphysical, intersubjective approach to questions of individuation and subjectivity. (...) In other essays, he develops his distinctive, communications-theoretic approach to questions of meaning and validity. The book as a whole expands on his earlier efforts to define a middle ground between nostalgic revivals of metaphysical conceptions of reason and radical deconstructions of reason. Jürgen Habermas is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Frankfurt.The Essays: The Horizon of Modernity is Shifting. Metaphysics after Kant. Themes in Postmetaphysical Thinking. Toward a Critique of the Theory of Meaning. Peirce and Communication. The Unity of Reason in the Diversity of Its Voices. Individuation through Socialization: On George Herbert Mead's Theory of Subjectivity. Philosophy and Science as Literature? (shrink)

The following volume is published on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the establishment of the Institute for Axiological Research in Vienna – the first European Institute for the advanced philosophical and interdisciplinary study of values – and is divided in two parts. The first one treats specific problems of women's struggle for rights, freedoms, and recognition, and moves successively to thematically broader methodological and hermeneutical approaches of the phenomena of exclusion and the possibilities of social integration, which are (...) discussed in the second part. Although the defended positions of the essays in the present volume are different from those of Habermas, they should be conceived in relation to the main issues of what he calls the "the postmetaphysical age." Hence, the authors ask such core axiological questions as: How do we think today of community, praxis and values in front of the old and new problems of injustice, oppression and exclusion? How should we consider personal and group identity in the contexts of social and cultural diversity, of world view pluralism and incommensurable lifeworlds, lifestyles and values? Moreover, what is the meaning of the key concept of "European values," can it offer a real basis for integration or does it serve rather as a new form of "dictatorship" and exclusion of otherness? (shrink)

Habermas emphasizes the importance for critical thinking of ideas of truth and moral validity that are at once context-transcending and immanent to human practices. in a recent review, Peter Dews queries his distinction between metaphysically construed transcendence and transcendence from within, asking provocatively in what sense Habermas does not believe in God. I answer that his conception of “God” is resolutely postmetaphysical, a god that is constructed by way of human linguistic practices. I then give three reasons for why (...) it should not be embraced by contemporary critical social theory. First, in the domain of practical reason, this conception of transcendence excludes by fiat any “Other” to communicative reason, blocking possibilities for mutual learning. Second, due to the same exclusion, it risks reproducing an undesirable social order. Third, it is inadequate for the purposes of a critical theory of social institutions. (shrink)

First, I offer a short overview on the classical occidental philosophy as propounded by the ancient Greeks and the natural philosophies of the last 2000 years until the dawn of the empiricist logic of science in the twentieth century, which wanted to delimitate classical metaphysics from empirical sciences. In contrast to metaphysical concepts which didn’t reflect on the language with which they tried to explain the whole realm of entities empiricist logic of science initiated the end of metaphysical theories (...) by reflecting on the preconditions for foundation and justification of sentences about objects of investigation, i.e. a coherent definition of language in general, which was not the aim of classical metaphysics. Unexpectedly empiricist logic of science in the linguistic turn failed in the physical and mathematical reductionism of language and its use in communication, as will be discussed below in further detail. Nevertheless, such reflection on language and communication also introduced this vocabulary into biology. Manfred Eigen and bioinformatics, later on biolinguistics, used ‘language’ applied linguistic turn thinking to biology coherent to the logic of science and its formalisable aims. This changed significantly with the birth of biosemiotics and biohermeneutics. At the end of this introduction it will be outlined why and how all these approaches reproduced the deficiencies of the logic of science and why the biocommunicative approach avoids their abstractive fallacies. (shrink)

Is it possible to develop a discourse that describes human experience but avoids theoretical concepts such as consciousness and qualia, and do so in such a way that the difficult problems are resolved? It strikes me that Gordon Globus is attempting to do something like this. It seems an honorable project from the perspectives of both the analytic philosophy of mind and the postmodern celebration of multiple discourses. I want to suggest, however, that in his account the problems of (...) qualia and consciousness are not really dissipated, but simply dressed up in different garb. (shrink)

Frankfurt School critical theory has long opposed metaphysical philosophy because it ignores suffering and injustice. In the face of such criticism, proponents of metaphysics (for example Dieter Henrich) have accused critical theory of not fully investigating the questions is raises for itself, and falling into partial metaphysical positions, despite itself. If one focuses on Max Horkheimer's early essays, such an accusation seems quite fitting. There he vociferously attacks metaphysics, but he also develops a theory that pushes toward metaphysical questions. (...) His work can thus seem laden with unpacked metaphysical baggage, and fraught with contradiction. The aim of this paper is to show that Horkheimer's critique of metaphysics makes sense and is not contradicted by a surreptitious metaphysics. To show this, Horkheimer's views will be compared with Bas van Fraassen's in The Empirical Stance . Ultimately, the paper should show that Horkheimer's early philosophy can be reconstructed in such a way that it employs a 'materialist stance'. (shrink)

From its Presocratic beginnings, Western philosophy concerned itself with a quest for unity both in terms of the systematization of knowledge and as a metaphysical search for a unity of being—two trends that can be regarded as converging and culminating in Hegel’s system of absolute idealism. Since Hegel, however, the philosophical quest for unity has become increasingly problematic. Jussi Backman returns to that question in this book, examining the place of the unity of being in the work of Heidegger. (...) Backman sketches a consistent picture of Heidegger as a thinker of unity who throughout his career in different ways attempted to come to terms with both Parmenides’s and Aristotle’s fundamental questions concerning the singularity or multiplicity of being—attempting to do so, however, in a “postmetaphysical” manner rooted in rather than above and beyond particular, situated beings. Through his analysis, Backman offers a new way of understanding the basic continuity of Heidegger’s philosophical project and the interconnectedness of such key Heideggerian concepts as ecstatic temporality, the ontological difference, the turn (Kehre), the event (Ereignis), the fourfold (Geviert), and the analysis of modern technology. (shrink)

Several accounts of postmodernist theories define them as discourses in quotation marks thus shifting the emphasis from reconstruction to deconstruction. Without contesting the import of deconstructive philosophy and Derrida's intervention in particular, in this essay I defend reconstruction and propose it as a mode of postmodernism that is compatible or even complementary with discursive strategies of quote‐mark use. By drawing on Albrecht Wellmer's and Klaus Eder's ideas, I introduce a definition of postmodernism as postmetaphysical thinking and explore some (...) basic metaphysical tenets about subjectivity, reason, language, and human nature as characteristic of the modern era and by no means endemic in thought. I argue that this attempt uncouples reconstruction from metaphysics allowing it to regain its philosophical significance and opens new conceptual horizons for understanding reflection and culture. (shrink)

The article considers Jürgen Habermas's views on the relationship between postmetaphysical philosophy and religion. It outlines Habermas's shift from his earlier, apparently dismissive attitude towards religion to his presently more receptive stance. This more receptive stance is evident in his recent emphasis on critical engagement with the semantic contents of religion and may be characterized by two interrelated theses: the view that religious contributions should be included in political deliberations in the informally organized public spheres of contemporary democracies, (...) though translated into a secular language for the purposes of legislation and formal decision making and the view that postmetaphysical philosophy should seek to salvage the semantic contents of religious traditions in order to supply the evocative images, exemplary figures, and inspirational narratives it needs for its social and political projects. With regard to, it argues that the translation requirement impairs the political autonomy of religious believers and other metaphysically inclined citizens, suggesting that this difficulty could be alleviated by making a distinction between epistemologically authoritarian and non-authoritarian religious beliefs. With regard to, it argues that the salvaging operation is not as straightforward as Habermas seems to suppose and that social and political philosophy may not be able to tap the semantic power of religious traditions without relying on metaphysical assumptions; it concludes that, here, too, a distinction between authoritarian and non-authoritarian approaches to knowledge and validity may be useful. (shrink)

Postmetaphysics in this book is interpreted as thinking through metaphysics at the closure of metaphysics by thinking the impossible possibility of metaphysics. In this site of the closure of metaphysics and the turn to language, the grammar of faith is discovered as the grammar of language or writing. The logic or grammatology of writing and thus of reality is revealed, not contra to philosophy or metaphysics, but when thinking through metaphysics to its end or closure, and there in that (...) site the grammar of faith is revealed as the grammar of texts and contexts and in such a site "God" is a good name to save and hence the possibility of postmetaphysical God-talk. The book concludes with three oblique offerings with regard to such postmetaphysical God-talk, namely a construction of an image, theopoetics and finally holy folly in response to the limitations and possibilities of postmetaphysical God-talk in the light of the conversation between Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida. (shrink)

A Review of The Remains of Being: Hermeneutic Ontology after Metaphysics , by Santiago Zabala This essay offers a critical assessment of Santiago Zabala’s recent book, The Remains of Being: Hermeneutic Ontology After Metaphysics, with the intent of bringing to light Zabala’s most provocative claims about hermeneutics, post-Heideggerian ontology, and the future of philosophy in the postmetaphysical epoch. After reflecting on the aims (section II) and structure of Zabala’s book (section III), the essay attempts to make clear certain (...) tensions that emerge from Zabala’s basic terminology—specifically, the “remains” and “remnants” of Being—with respect to the “subjective” interpretation of Being Zabala defends (section IV). The paper concludes (section V) by pressing Zabala for a more thoroughgoing defense of his most ambitious claims about the primacy of hermeneutics in postmetaphysical thought, particularly regarding his reading of Heidegger’s works. (shrink)

This book charts and challenges the bruising impact of post-Saussurean thought on the categories of experience and self-presence. It attempts a reappropriation of the category of lived experience in dialogue with poststructuralist thinking. Following the insight that mediated subjectivity need not mean alienated selfhood, Meredith forwards a postmetaphysical model of the experiential based on the interpenetration of poststructuralist thinking and hermeneutic phenomenology. Since poststructuralist approaches in feminist theory have often placed women's lived experiences "under erasure," Meredith uses this hermeneutic/deconstructive (...) model to attempt a rehabilitation of the singular "flesh and blood" female existent. (shrink)

The paper studies, within the framework of Martin Heidegger's narrative of the history of metaphysics, two perspectives on the unity of being: the "protometaphysical" perspective of Parmenides, the thinker of the "first beginning" of Western philosophy, and the postmetaphysical perspective of Heidegger, situated in the ongoing transition from the Hegelian and Nietzschean end of metaphysics to a forthcoming "other beginning" of Western thought. Both perspectives involve a certain "crisis", in the literal sense of the Greek krisis, "distinction," "decision." (...) Parmenides' goddess exhorts the thinker to decide for being in the sense of pure intelligible accessibility or presence and to exclude all references to non-accessibility and non-presence. This is the foundation of the Parmenidean thesis of the unity of being. In the Heideggerian perspective, by contrast, meaningful presence is seen as constituted precisely by references to a withdrawing meaning-context, to background dimensions that in themselves are not immediately present. Since presence is constituted only in terms of non-presence, the "decision" or "crisis" between presence and non-presence is an unresolvable and irreducible feature of postmetaphysical thinking. (shrink)

The chapter argues that radical contextuality, a hallmark theme of “postmodern” thought, is also a key element of Heidegger’s thinking. Aristotelian metaphysics, as the question of being qua being, looks for a universal principle common to every particular instance of “to be.” By contrast, the postmetaphysical approach gradually developed by Heidegger basically addresses being as the irreducible context-sensitivity and singularity of a meaningful situation, understood as a unique focal point of a dynamic and complex meaning-context. The fundamental ontology of (...) Being and Time (1927) articulates the temporally contextual structure of the human being as Dasein, culminating in the concept of the multidimensional singular instant (Augenblick). After the failure of his attempt to articulate the temporally contextual singularity of being in terms of its correlation with Dasein, Heidegger attempts an inverted approach: Contributions to Philosophy (1936–38) considers Dasein as the spatiotemporally situated place of the singular event (Ereignis) of being. The chapter finally suggests an interpretation of the fourfold (Geviert) of sky, earth, gods, and mortals, allusively introduced in the 1949 Bremen lectures, as Heidegger’s most elaborate account of the multidimensional structure that makes possible the contextual singularization of meaningfulness. (shrink)

What happens when mindless symbols of algorithmic AI encounter mindful performative rituals? I return to my criticisms of Habermas’ secularising reading of Kierkegaard’s ethics. Next, I lay out Habermas’ claim that the sacred complex of ritual and myth contains the ur-origins of postmetaphysical thinking and reflective faith. If reflective faith shares with ritual same origins as does communicative interaction, how do we access these archaic ritual sources of human solidarity in the age of AI?

This essay offers a critical assessment of Santiago Zabala's recent book, The Remains of Being: Hermeneutic Ontology After Metaphysics, with the intent of bringing to light Zabala's most provocative claims about hermeneutics, post-Heideggerian ontology, and the future of philosophy in the postmetaphysical epoch. After reflecting on the aims (section II) and structure of Zabala's book (section III), the essay attempts to make clear certain tensions that emerge from Zabala's basic terminology—specifically, the "remains" and "remnants" of Being—with respect to (...) the "subjective" interpretation of Being Zabala defends (section IV). The paper concludes (section V) by pressing Zabala for a more thoroughgoing defense of his most ambitious claims about the primacy of hermeneutics in postmetaphysical thought, particularly regarding his reading of Heidegger's works. (shrink)

This article critically exposes Habermas’ discussion of Martin Heidegger’s philosophy of Being and George Bataille’s heterology as a way of identifying the postmetaphysical stance as the guiding spirit of Habermas’ modernity. In his work The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Habermas argues that whereas Heidegger’s Being sacrifices actuality in the name of interpretation, Bataille’s heterology sets up the unlimited experience which fails to provide an impetus for societal critique. Here a postmetaphysical approach is envisaged by Habermas as a (...) way of going beyond the confines of the metaphysical tradition, although it also needs to pay attention to charges of misreading in its attempt to deconstruct the discourse of the modern. (shrink)

An important influence on Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology is the work of Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar. Marion is particularly interested in Balthasar’s ‘phenomenological’ approach to the content of Christian revelation, centered on the metaphor of the work of art. Balthasar suggests in his Theo-Logic that the early Marion ‘concede[s] too much to the critique of Heidegger,’ moving too far away from the ‘transcendental’ metaphysics of Aquinas and the classical tradition. Yet Balthasar’s criticism is premature. Rather, Marion’s work, particularly (...) his emphasis on the ‘saturated phenomenon,’ paves the way for a postmetaphysical theological aesthetics that might renew Balthasar’s project in a cultural situation ‘after’ the death of God, while simultaneously opening a space for Christian revelation apart from a certain hegemonic tradition of onto-theology. (shrink)

Habermas’s postmetaphysical reading of Kierkegaard is paradigmatic for his understanding of religion. It shows, why Habermas reduces religion to fideism. Therefore the paper reconstructs Habermas’s reception of Kierkegaard and compares it with the accounts of Dieter Henrich and Michael Theunissen. Furthermore it demonstrates how Habermas makes use of Kierkegaard’s dialectics of existence to formulate his postmetaphysical thesis of a cooperative venture.

Like bundles of homogeneous light or particles that are scattered in physics experiments, says Goris, the homogeneous field of metaphysics was dispersed in the 14th century. He connects that dispersion to the contemporary rejection of metaphysics. His topics are the analysis of concepts, the contested primacy, scattering the homogeneous field of me.

Drawing on the work of Jurgen Habermas, Seyla Benhabib has developed a system of communicative or discourse ethics. Her approach is said to respect differences and to count context as important but she also claims that it is postmetaphysical. I dispute this claim on two grounds. First, I argue that any system of ethics must be grounded by metaphysical commitments. Second, I show that in using elements of both Kantian and Aristotelian theory, Benhabib has imported metaphysical underpinnings into her (...) theory and that these implicit understandings of what the moral enterprise is about, ought to be made explicit. Finally, a brief exploration of some contemporary ethical reflection and problem solving suggests that a shared metaphysical foundation is essential to ethical discourse. (shrink)

Feminist philosophy of religion as a subject of study has developed in recent years because of the identification and exposure of explicit sexism in much of the traditional philosophical thinking about religion. This struggle with a discipline shaped almost exclusively by men has led feminist philosophers to redress the problematic biases of gender, race, class and sexual orientation of the subject. Anderson and Clack bring together new and key writings on the core topics and approaches to this growing field. (...) Each essay exhibits a distinctive theoretical approach and appropriate insights from the fields of literature, theology, philosophy, gender and cultural studies. Beginning with a general introduction, part one explores important approaches to the feminist philosophy of religion, including psychoanalytic, poststructualist, postmetaphysical, and epistemological frameworks. In part two the authors survey significant topics including questions of divinity, embodiment, autonomy and spirituality, and religious practice. Supported by explanatory prefaces and an extensive bibliography which is organized thematically, Feminist Philosophy of Religion is an important resource for this new area of study. (shrink)

In recent years, discussion on evil as a philosophical problem has increased. However, there is a tendency to see this problem from an aesthetic point of view, to frame it in theodicy's plot, or even to suggest silence in front of those extreme forms of evil that are linked to specific episodes, such as totalitarianism or ethnic cleansing. This review article focuses on María Pía Lara's development of a postmetaphysical theory of evil in her book Narrating Evil. The main (...) purpose of Lara's theoretical effort is to show that critical recovery of historical episodes that have become paradigms of evil for us, has a narrative texture and intends to generate a discussion in the present time about the ways we can give reality to an idea of democratic justice, in the context of what Jürgen Habermas has called secular and postmetaphysical societies. Thus, learning from catastrophes — the term coined by Habermas and redefined by Lara — becomes a tool for mastering the past, but also constitutes a narrative device that allows us a critical approach to our present political reality. (shrink)

Until now, North American and European philosophies have been engaged in debates about the possibility of a postmetaphysical philosophy and the consequences of the linguistic turn for the assessment of modernity; they have done so, however, without departing from the narrow horizons of their respective nationalistic perspectives. In this incisive critique, Dussel demonstrates how most of thse philosophies have either failed to give historically faithful analyses of the genesis of the "myth" of modernity, or have never engaged in (...) a serious questioning of their own Eurocentric presuppositions. He shows how North American and European philosophers have presupposed a no-longer-acceptable philosophy of history that has led them to fall into a "developmental fallacy," the belief that there is a linear sequence that moves from the premodern, underdeveloped, or on the way to industrialization, to the modern, developed, and industrialized. (shrink)

현대사회에서 철학이 처한 위기는 본질적이다. 철학은 자신의 시대를 위기로 파악하면서 새로운 사유를 지향한다. 그러기에 철학적 관점에서 매 시대는 위기와 극복의 사유를 전개하는 시대이지만, 그럼에도 현대는 철학이 그 자체로 폐기될 위험에 처해있다. 이 논문은 현대의 철학에 닥친 위기의 본질을 계보사적 맥락에서 밝히고, 이를 성찰함으로써 철학 본연의 자리를 새롭게 정초하려는 목적을 지닌다. 이를 위해 먼저 현대의 철학이 유래한 근원에 대해 해명하고(2장) 이 철학이 처한 위기 현상을 그 존재론적 터전의 왜곡(3장)으로 파악할 것이다.BR4장은 이러한 존재론적 위기를 극복하기 위해 필요한 사유로서의 탈형이상학적 동인을 해명한다. 그것은 (...) 서구 철학의 전승과 함께 실체론적으로 설정된 신적 사유의 해체로 밝히고 있다. 5장에서는 철학의 본질 가운데 하나인 이성개념을 새롭게 이해하기 위한 논의를 담고 있다. 이어 6장에서는 현대 철학이 나아가야 할 지향점과 과제를 논의할 것이다. 그 뒤에는 철학이란 존재를 새롭게 이해하는 사유의 길을 걸어가는 영원의 학문이라는 생각이 자리한다. (shrink)

Martin Heidegger's impact on contemporary thought is important and controversial. However in France, the influence of this German philosopher is such that contemporary French thought cannot be properly understood without reference to Heidegger and his extraordinary influence. Tom Rockmore examines the reception of Heidegger's thought in France. He argues that in the period after the Second World War, due to the peculiar nature of the humanist French Philosophical tradition, Heidegger became the master thinker of French philosophy. Perhaps most importantly, (...) he contends that this reception - first as philosophical anthropology and later as postmetaphysical humanism - is systematically mistaken. (shrink)

Despite his hostility to religion in his early career, since the turn of the century Habermas has devoted his research to the relationship between faith and knowledge. His two-volume Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie is the culmination of this project. Spurred by the attacks of 9/11 and the growing conflict between religion and the forces of secularization, I argue that this philosophy of history is the centerpiece of an important turning point in Habermas’s intellectual development. Instead of interpreting religion (...) merely as part of the history of postmetaphysical thinking, Habermas now sees it as a crucial normative resource for both philosophy and social cohesion in the future aswell. Despite its backward-looking approach,my basic thesis is that this book is best understood as a forward-looking appeal for a tolerant, self-reflective democratic politics that brings religious and secular citizens together dialogically through the cooperative use of their rational freedom. (shrink)

Explores the philosophical dimensions and implications of integral theory. Dancing with Sophia is the first book of essays to focus on the philosophical dimensions and implications of integral theory. A metatheory that organizes first order theories and disciplines into higher order modes of knowing and insight needed to address the complexity of today’s world, integral theory has already impacted a wide range of disciplines, from psychology to business to religious studies to art. Included here are perspectives by scholars in the (...) continental, comparativist, and process traditions who dive into integral theory’s postmetaphysical claims in order to mine, extend, and critique its philosophical merits. On the verge of its own emergence, integral philosophy promotes modes of creative critical thought oriented toward the multidimensional flourishing of planetary well-being, and Dancing with Sophia will be of interest to scholars in philosophy; religious studies; transpersonal, developmental, and humanist psychology; and more. “Integral theory is a bold and provocative endeavor. It challenges one to think past the norm, to sail beyond the horizon and risk encountering the Scylla and Charybdis of what is academically acceptable—or at least familiar—and what is possible, in ways that only are now beginning to dawn on both thinking and dwelling. If it is nothing else, integral theory is the movement beyond the purely intellectual into the lived experience. This is its ‘meta-’ dimension properly understood.” — from the Foreword by Brian Schroeder. (shrink)

Richard Rorty's pragmatism is a distinctively doubled philosophy formed at the twain of a rigorous antifoun‐dational philosophical perspective and a committed postmetaphysical cultural criticism. Rorty instead rigorously held to the line that no particular politics follows from anti‐foundational philosophy. Rorty's arguments against representationalism, foundationalism, and metaphysics‐first philosophy in Mirror are complex and not always easy to navigate without careful guidance. The risk of the approach in Mirror is that it could implicate Rorty in a foundationalist critique (...) of foundationalism, or a metaphysical critique of metaphysics. For ironism is the studied denial not of metaphysics itself, but only of strong forms of pro‐metaphysical argument. Rorty uses liberalism to avoid the metaphysical forbidding of metaphysics – substituting for it instead a liberal, perhaps even a critical, limiting of metaphysics. The most important insight of Contingency boils down to this: liberalism and ironism together give us something to strive for that the metaphysician would otherwise take as settled. (shrink)

Exploring the risks, ambiguities, and unstable conceptual worlds of contemporary thought, Crossover Queries brings together the wide-ranging writings, across twenty years, of one of our most important philosophers.Ranging from twentieth-century European philosophy—the thought of Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Levinas, Janicaud, and others—to novels and artworks, music and dance, from traditional Jewish thought to Jain andBuddhist metaphysics, Wyschogrod’s work opens radically new vistas while remaining mindful that the philosopher stands within and is responsible to a philosophical legacy conditioned by the negative.Rather (...) than point to a Hegelian dialectic of overcoming negation or to a postmetaphysical exhaustion, Wyschogrod treats negative moments as opening novel spaces for thought. She probes both the desire for God and an ethics grounded in the interests of the other person, seeing these as moments both of crossing over and of negation. Alert to the catastrophes that have marked our times, she exposes the underlying logical structures of nihilatory forces that have been exerted to exterminate whole peoples. Analyzing the negationsof biological research and cultural images of mechanized and robotic bodies, she shows how they contest the body as lived in ordinary experience.“Crossover Queries brings together important essays on a remarkable range of topics by one of our most insightful cultural critics. Commenting on philosophical and theological issues that have shaped the recent past as well as scientific and technological questions that will preoccupy us in the near future, Wyschogrod consistently alerts us to the urgency of problems whose importance few recognize. To avoid the challenge these essays pose is to avoid responsibility for a future that appears to be increasingly fragile.”—Mark C. Taylor, Columbia University. (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Volume 48, Issue 3, Page 313-332, March 2022. This article discusses Jürgen Habermas’s latest book Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie from the specific angle of what the section on Rawls indicates about the overall philosophical project pursued by Habermas. This tiny element within the imposing architecture reveals a structural problem that affects Habermas’s program for a detranscendentalization of reason. After a general premise, Habermas’s appraisal of Rawls’s work is reconstructed and critically examined. Then, in the (...) guise of a Rawlsian rejoinder, a problematic understanding of pluralism is shown to undergird Habermas’s overlooking of the ground-breaking potential of the normativity of ‘the reasonable’ and ‘the most reasonable’. Finally, this neglect is argued to be indicative of a deeper lacuna: namely, a missing confrontation with Wittgenstein’s rival path to a postmetaphysical, intersubjective, detranscentendalized reason. That lacuna, finally, invites a closer scrutiny of the overall genealogical picture and its central opposition between two pathways to the postmetaphysicization of reason. (shrink)

이 논문은 생명철학과 생명정치학의 함의와 그 관계를 해명하려는 글이다. 생명에 대한 존재자적 탐구가 생명의 의미를 망각한다면 생명철학은 그 존재론적 의미를 밝히는 형이상학적 작업이다. 그에 비해 생명정치학은 생명체의 타당한 존재론적 터전을 정립하는 실천 철학의 영역에 속한다. 현대의 사회문화적 상황은 생명을 실용주의적 관점에 따라 대상화함으로써 생명이 생명으로 자리할 터전을 박탈한다. 이런 현대 사회의 생명성 망각과 생명 소외 현상을 넘어설 길을 생명철학의 존재론과 생명정치학의 실천철학에서 찾으려는 노력이 이 글에 담긴 근본 목적이다. 이를 위해 먼저 이 두 학문을 포괄하는 맥락에서 설정한 생명학의 범위와 내용을 (...) 해명한다. 이어 생명철학의 내용을 설명한 뒤, 이를 바탕으로 생명정치학의 내용을 소개한다. 여기에는 F. 푸코의 생명관리정치와 G. 아감벤의 생명정치학이 포함된다. 이어 현대 사회에서 생명에 대한 과학적 지식을 전유하면서 이를 자본주의적 맥락으로 몰아가는 생명자본의 정치경제학을 비판적으로 분석한다. 이런 논의를 바탕으로 결론에서는 우리의 실존과 존재를 생명성으로 연결지어 해명하는 철학적 사유가 필요함을 말하면서 정당하게 이해하는 생명철학적 학문을 주장할 것이다. 그에 따라 생명과 올바른 관계맺음을 가능하게 하는 생명정치학이 정초될 수 있기 때문이다. (shrink)

Although Quentin Meillassoux’s philosophy desires to be postmetaphysical and posttheological, I argue in this paper that it remains structurally theological. Specifically, I argue that Meillassoux’s speculative thesis on the contingency of nature and its laws repeats at a formal level the medieval theological distinction between God’s absolute power and God’s ordained power. The first part of this paper discusses how this distinction allowed medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus to understand and have faith in the (...) stable contingency of the present order of things in light of divine omnipotence. The second part of this paper discusses how Meillassoux repeats this distinction, intentionally or not, between God’s absolute power and God’s ordained power in his attempt to think the absolute contingency of the laws of nature as an effect of hyper-Chaos. Although, unlike the medieval God, Meillassoux’s hyper-Chaos remains fundamentally without reason and devoid of any moral valence, I argue in the third section of this paper that Meillassoux sneaks in an existential faith in the present and future order of things with his appeal to hope in a speculative resurrection of the dead, a move that brings him further in line with the substance of the distinction between God’s absolute power and God’s ordained power. (shrink)

2019년 하버마스는 90세의 나이에 그의 생애 최대 분량의 저작 『또 하나의 철학사』(Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie) 1, 2권을 세상에 내놓았다. 이 저작으로부터 회고해 보면, 하버마스 스스로 비판이론의 ‘패러다임 전환’을 가져온 것으로 평가했던 『의사소통행위이론』 이후에도 그의 방법론에 중요한 변화 내지 보완이 있었음을 확인할 수 있다. 나는 그 변화를 ‘탈초월화’로부터 ‘계보학’으로의 중심 이동으로 규정하고자 한다. 두 방법 모두 실천적 합리성을 해명하고 강화하는 데 기여하고자 한다는 점에서는 공통이다. 다만 탈초월화가 실천적 합리성을 현재의 여러 이론 조각들로부터, 즉 전방으로부터 혹은 공시적으로 설명하려 한다면, 계보학은 후방으로부터 (...) 혹은 통시적으로 해명하려는 노력이라고 할 수 있을 것이다. 탈초월화가 실천적 합리성의 불가피성을 말하고자 한다면, 계보학은 실천적 합리성의 부정이 가능하긴 하지만 이성적이지 않음을 보여주고자 한다. 나는 두 방법론의 차이가 중요한 이론적, 실천적 문제의식의 변화에서 비롯된다고 생각한다. 본 논문의 목적은 하버마스가 어떤 이론적, 실천적 필요에서 계보학적 방법에 점차로 더 큰 비중을 두는지, 그의 계보학적 방법의 특징이 무엇인지, 왜 계보학적 접근에서 신앙과 지식 내지 종교와 철학의 관계에 주목하는지, 그런 계보학적 고찰의 이론적, 실천적 결실이 무엇인지를 밝히는 것이다. 내가 보기에 하버마스가 계보학적 고찰로 눈을 돌리게 된 것은 이론적인 측면에서는 의사소통행위이론 및 토의윤리학의 제한성에 대해 자각하게 되었고 인간의 자기이해를 심각하게 위협하는 과학주의적 사고를 비판할 필요성이 절실해졌기 때문이다. 실천적 측면에서 그의 계보학은 종교가 여전히 강력한 영향력을 발휘하는 현실에서 민주주의를 어떻게 구상할 것인가의 문제에 대한 답을 찾고자 한다. 본 논문의 서술은 이론적 문제에 보다 중점을 둘 것이다. (shrink)

In Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie (Also a History of Philosophy), Jürgen Habermas weaves together various themes such as faith and knowledge, history and theology, naturalism and epistemic justification, learning processes and moral development as well as multiculturalism and deliberative democracy in a transnational public sphere. This article argues that to articulate these multiple elements, Habermas adopts a robust framework built upon four conceptual pillars that can be clearly identified: postmetaphysical, postconventional, postnational, and postsecular. This “conceptual plurality” underlies (...) his genealogy of the centuries-long tension and mutual learning between religious faith and scientific knowledge in the Western philosophical tradition. By considering the interplay of these concepts, it is possible to understand the several ways in which religion emerges in contemporary society and the equally multiple strategies Habermas uses to interpret religion throughout his career, which are masterfully reconsidered and articulated in his opus magnum on religion. (shrink)

This article discusses Jürgen Habermas’s latest book Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie from the specific angle of what the section on Rawls indicates about the overall philosophical project pursued by Habermas. This tiny element within the imposing architecture reveals a structural problem that affects Habermas’s program for a detranscendentalization of reason. After a general premise, Habermas’s appraisal of Rawls’s work is reconstructed and critically examined. Then, in the guise of a Rawlsian rejoinder, a problematic understanding of pluralism is shown to (...) undergird Habermas’s overlooking of the ground-breaking potential of the normativity of ‘the reasonable’ and ‘the most reasonable’. Finally, this neglect is argued to be indicative of a deeper lacuna: namely, a missing confrontation with Wittgenstein’s rival path to a postmetaphysical, intersubjective, detranscentendalized reason. That lacuna, finally, invites a closer scrutiny of the overall genealogical picture and its central opposition between two pathways to the postmetaphysicization of reason. (shrink)

This article discusses Jürgen Habermas’s latest book Auch eine Geschichte der Philosophie from the specific angle of what the section on Rawls indicates about the overall philosophical project pursued by Habermas. This tiny element within the imposing architecture reveals a structural problem that affects Habermas’s program for a detranscendentalization of reason. After a general premise, Habermas’s appraisal of Rawls’s work is reconstructed and critically examined. Then, in the guise of a Rawlsian rejoinder, a problematic understanding of pluralism is shown to (...) undergird Habermas’s overlooking of the ground-breaking potential of the normativity of ‘the reasonable’ and ‘the most reasonable’. Finally, this neglect is argued to be indicative of a deeper lacuna: namely, a missing confrontation with Wittgenstein’s rival path to a postmetaphysical, intersubjective, detranscentendalized reason. That lacuna, finally, invites a closer scrutiny of the overall genealogical picture and its central opposition between two pathways to the postmetaphysicization of reason. (shrink)