Religion in der Moderne
Zur Auseinandersetzung von Jürgen Habermas mit naturalistischen Weltbildern der Wissenschaft und religiِsen Orthodoxien
Von Hans Joas
Besprochene Bücher ...
Wie kaum ein anderer der groكen systematischen Denker unserer Zeit hat Jürgen Habermas seit Jahrzehnten auch stets zu brennenden Zeitfragen Stellung genommen und sich in seiner philosophischen Arbeit von aktuellen Konstellationen inspirieren lassen. Von einem Nachlassen seiner enormen zeitdiagnostischen Krنfte kann weiterhin keine Rede sein. Mit seinem neuen Aufsatzband legt der Philosoph nun eine Sammlung von Arbeiten aus den Jahren 2001 bis 2004 vor, die zwar etwas heterogen geraten ist, aber gerade auch deshalb Anknüpfungspunkte für vielerlei Interessen bietet. Einige Kapitel werden vornehmlich diejenigen interessieren, die sich mit den Finessen der inneren Architektonik von Habermas' Gedankengebنude auseinander setzen. Die meisten Teile des Buches aber sind von allgemeinerem Interesse, und am Beginn des Bandes steht ein anrührender autobiografischer Text, dessen Ausstrahlung sich wohl niemand entziehen kann.
Habermas, der die ضffentlichkeit und auch persِnlich getِnte Kontroversen nie gescheut hat, hielt sich hinsichtlich der lebensgeschichtlichen Wurzeln seines eigenen denkerischen und politischen Engagements bisher immer eher scheu zurück. Zum ersten Mal reflektiert er nun ِffentlich über die leidvollen Erfahrungen, die sich aus seiner Behinderung sowie den damit verbundenen medizinischen Eingriffen, Kommunikationsschwierigkeiten und Krنnkungen ergaben. Und er schildert die für ihn (wie für viele seiner Generationsgenossen in Deutschland) zentrale Erschütterungserfahrung von 1945 und ihre Konsequenzen. Damit werden die Triebkrنfte, aber auch die schier unerschِpflichen Energien dieses Denkers in einer über das Intellektuelle weit hinausgehenden Weise verstنndlich gemacht.
Wie der Titel signalisiert, benennt Habermas zwei gegenlنufige Tendenzen als kennzeichnend für die geistige Situation unserer unmittelbaren Gegenwart: "die Ausbreitung naturalistischer Weltbilder und der wachsende politische Einfluك religiِser Orthodoxien". Mit dem Begriff des "Naturalismus" zielt er vor allem auf die Tendenzen einiger (dadurch prominent gewordener) deutscher Hirnforscher wie Wolf Singer und Gerhard Roth, alle traditionell als mental bezeichneten Vorgنnge "allein aus beobachtbaren physiologischen Bedingungen zu erklنren".
Die grِكte Sprengkraft in der Diskussion hat dabei die These entwickelt, dass das Freiheitsbewusstsein, das Handelnde gegenüber ihren eigenen Handlungen haben, eine bloكe Illusion darstelle. Dieser These ist in den letzten Jahren von philosophischer Seite schon mehrfach in groكer Differenziertheit entgegnet worden, ohne dass ihre Vertreter sich zu mehr als verbalen Korrekturen entschlieكen konnten. Die meisten Entgegnungen laufen darauf hinaus, dass die Vorstellung von Willensfreiheit als einer vِllig bedingungs- und kontextlosen Willkür in der Philosophie und den Sozialwissenschaften selbst spنtestens im 19. Jahrhundert überwunden wurde und die Angriffe der Hirnforscher insofern einem bloكen Popanz gelten.
Habermas stützt sich nun (im Kapitel Freiheit und Determinismus) auf eine Reihe dieser Kritiken und zieht sie zu einer überzeugenden Synthese zusammen. Mit dem Gedanken, dass der freie Wille sich zumindest in der Form eines Vetos gegenüber unbewusst in Gang gesetzten Handlungsablنufen zur Geltung bringen kِnne, hat schon Benjamin Libet, auf dessen Experimente sich die Beweisführung der Hirnforscher wesentlich stützt, eine deutlich weichere Position eingenommen. Habermas betont nun darüber hinaus die Rolle der Gründe für das Handeln: "Der Handelnde ist dann frei, wenn er will, was er als Ergebnis seiner ـberlegung für richtig hنlt. Als Unfreiheit erfahren wir nur einen von auكen auferlegten Zwang, der uns nِtigt, anders zu handeln, als wir nach eigener Einsicht handeln wollen."
Wenn dies so ist, dann wird ein Dualismus der Perspektiven unvermeidbar; dem subjektiv empfundenen Freiheitsbewusstsein steht eine Beobachterperspektive gegenüber, aus der nach Ursachen und Gesetzmنكigkeiten gefragt wird und die zu einem naturwissenschaftlichen Determinismus verdichtet werden kann. Habermas geht über die typischen philosophischen Kritiken auch insofern hinaus, als er diesen Dualismus selbst als ein Resultat der Naturgeschichte, das heiكt der Evolution des Homo Sapiens, zu sehen bereit ist. Damit kann er eine Fülle anthropologischer Befunde in seine Kritik eines biologistischen Weltbildes integrieren.
Der Begriff des Naturalismus wird dann allerdings zweideutig. Das Anliegen einer Naturalisierung des Geistes teilt Habermas nنmlich durchaus; seine Argumentation entstammt ja nicht einem traditionellen Idealismus, sondern dem Pragmatismus. Die Auseinandersetzung über den richtigen Naturalismus ist aber etwas anderes als ein Kampf gegen diesen. Zu bekنmpfen ist nicht der Naturalismus als solcher, sondern eine spezifische spekulative Deutung biologischer Ergebnisse, die diese zu einem Weltbild überhِht.
Auch bei der anderen groكen Tendenz unserer Zeit wird eine merkwürdige Zweideutigkeit spürbar. Wenn Habermas vom wachsenden Einfluss religiِser Orthodoxien spricht, kann sich der Leser schon beim ersten Satz des Buchs fragen, ob es nur um diese oder nicht doch besser um die politische Bedeutung der Religion insgesamt gehen sollte. Es ist sogar unplausibel, die spektakulنren Fنlle politisierter Religion in unserer Zeit wie einen gewaltbereiten Islamismus oder den protestantischen Fundamentalismus in den USA überhaupt als Orthodoxien zu bezeichnen - als kümmerten sich deren Vertreter stark um Lehrtradition oder theologische Stimmigkeit. Der Band enthنlt einige Kapitel, die die Stellung der Religion in der ضffentlichkeit in meisterlicher Weise erِrtern. Leitfaden ist dabei die Frage nach den wechselseitigen Zumutungen, die religiِse und sنkulare Bürger beim "ِffentlichen Vernunftgebrauch" in einer Demokratie zu ertragen haben.
Angelehnt an Gedankengنnge, die John Rawls in seinen letzten Lebensjahren gebahnt hat, geht Habermas über ein militant laizistisches oder sنkularistisches Selbstverstنndnis, das auch ihn lange gekennzeichnet hatte, weit hinaus - noch weiter auch, als dies schon in seiner aufsehenerregenden Friedenspreisrede von 2001 geschehen war. Wenn damals Religion noch eher als Objekt der Zنhmung erschien, tritt sie jetzt immer mehr (und historisch mit guten Gründen) als Schrittmacherin des Wegs zu Demokratie und Menschenrechten auf.
Habermas stellt sich vehement der Vorstellung entgegen, dass die Trennung von Staat und Kirche (zu deren institutioneller Variabilitنt er mehr hنtte sagen kِnnen) auch auf die Stellungnahmen von Organisationen und Bürgern in der ضffentlichkeit auszudehnen sei. Es geht ihm um viel mehr als einen Respekt vor der Religion, nنmlich "um die selbstreflexive ـberwindung eines sنkularistisch verhنrteten und exklusiven Selbstverstنndnisses der Moderne". Auch in seiner Einleitung zu einer Diskussion mit Joseph Ratzinger votiert Habermas in aller Deutlichkeit dafür, die weltanschauliche Neutralitنt der Staatsgewalt im Sinne einer Distanz auch zu einer sنkularistischen Weltsicht zu deuten. In diesem Text zerlegt Habermas die berühmte Frage Bِckenfِrdes nach der Gewنhrleistung der normativen Voraussetzungen des freiheitlichen Staates in eine Serie von Unterfragen; in der Konklusion kommt er, ohne dass dies im mindesten als Anzeichen einer schleichenden Konversion gedeutet werden dürfte, zu dem religionsfreundlichen Schluss.
Aber die begrifflich virtuosen Texte des Bands sind gleichwohl durchzogen von Seitenhieben und Querverweisen, die für Einstellungen symptomatisch sind, um deren ـberwindung es Habermas doch gerade geht. Die Frage eines Kollegen, "ob nicht aus kulturvergleichender und religionssoziologischer Sicht die europنische Sنkularisierung der eigentliche Sonderweg sei, der einer Korrektur bedürfe" - eine Frage, der kein Glنubiger sich ja wohl entziehen kann -, lِst bei ihm die Assoziation zur Stimmungslage der Weimarer Republik, zu Carl Schmitt, Heidegger und Leo Strauss aus. Als überraschend bezeichnet er die politische Revitalisierung der Religion in den USA: als habe es die Bürgerrechtsbewegung nie gegeben. Und in seiner Rekonstruktion der Religionsphilosophie Kants und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte werden die groكen protestantischen Theologen Schleiermacher und Troeltsch zwar kurz erwنhnt, gleich aber nach dem Klischee des "Kulturprotestantismus" entwertet, als hنtten sie "den religiِsen Bezug zur Transzendenz seiner innerweltlichen Sprengkraft" beraubt, wنhrend es doch angemessener wنre, ihre Sensibilitنt gegenüber den Widersprüchlichkeiten der Moderne, bei aller Aufgeschlossenheit für diese, hervorzuheben. Von der modernen, nicht einfach apologetischen katholischen Religionsphilosophie seit Scheler ist gleich gar keine Rede.
Auch der Begriff der postsنkularen Gesellschaft, in die wir angeblich eingetreten sind, wird trotz vielfacher Wiederholung nicht plausibler. Weder sind ja die Zahlen der Glنubigen plِtzlich stark angeschwollen, noch hat der Staat sein sنkulares Selbstverstنndnis abgelegt. Es geht Habermas um eine ـberwindung sنkularistischer Ideologien - aber diese haben nie eindeutig dominiert, und ihre ـberwindung ist entsprechend kein ـbergang in eine neue Form von Gesellschaft.
Habermas bleibt auch dabei, religiِse ـberzeugungen von "anderen ethischen Lebensorientierungen und Weltanschauungen, d. h. weltlichen 'Konzeptionen des Guten'" dadurch zu unterscheiden, dass diese sich "vorbehaltloser diskursiver Erِrterung" entziehen. Das halte ich für einen Rest sنkularistischen Selbstmissverstنndnisses. Auch die weltlichen Konzeptionen des Guten sind in biografisch-historischen Erfahrungen fundiert, die zwar expliziert werden kِnnen, von deren Evidenzcharakter sich der Mensch aber nicht einfach lِsen kann. Das zeigen autobiografische Rückblicke, auch der in diesem Band, meist in aller Deutlichkeit.
Habermas prنsentiert sich bei aller Distanznahme im Einzelnen als ein neuer Kant - ein Kant der kommunikativen Vernunft und des Zeitalters nach Darwin. Es ist kein Zufall, dass die Studie zu Kants Religionsphilosophie wohl die brillanteste des Bands ist. Auch die Haltung des Moralisten Kant zur Religion wird in ihrer mehrfachen Ausrichtung übernommen. Die eher technischen Teile des Bands - Auseinandersetzungen mit Denkern, die Habermas in verschiedener Weise verbunden sind wie Adorno, Apel, McCarthy und Menke - zeigen den enormen Anspruch dieser Philosophie.
Und das Schlusskapitel, mit dem sich Habermas in die Debatten über eine Reform der UN einschaltet, erinnert bewusst an Kants als Vertragsentwurf prنsentierte ـberlegungen zum Ewigen Frieden. Vom einstigen Vertrauen in die motivierende Kraft der Moral als solcher ist nicht mehr die Rede; auch die Verhنrtung der ausschlieكlichen Konzentration auf das Recht, um diesen Mangel auszugleichen, ist überwunden. Doch die Faszination durch die Religion bleibt wie bei Kant sehr eng moralistisch eingehegt. Das Plنdoyer für einen produktiven Dialog von Glنubigen und Nichtglنubigen ist aber selten so eloquent und konzis vorgetragen worden.
Anmerkung der Redaktion: Die Rezension ist zuerst am 13.10.2005 in DIE ZEIT erschienen. Dem Verfasser Hans Joas, Leiter des Max-Weber-Kollegs in Erfurt und Professor für Soziologie und Sozialphilosophie in Erfurt und Chicago, danken wir für die Genehmigung zur Nachpublikation.
Elf Aufsنtze von Joas zum Thema Religion und Wertbindung erschienen gesammelt 2004 unter dem Titel "Braucht der Mensch Religion? ـber Erfahrung der Selbsttranszendenz", darunter einer über die Friedenspreisrede, die Jürgen Habermas im Oktober 2001 in der Frankfurter Paulskirche hielt. Joas beschreibt sie als "generِses Gesprنchsangebot" an Glنubige und Kirchen, als Angebot allerdings "nicht ohne Tücken".
Thursday, December 20, 2001
Habermas kann nicht ander
Habermas kann nicht anders
Gerhard Beckmann setzt sich mit dem populärsten deutschen Gegenwartsphilosophen auseinander, der nun die "postsäkulare Gesellschaft" verkündet
von Gerhard Beckmann
Bis vor vier Jahren war Religion für Jürgen Habermas Privatsache. Religiöse Motive für das öffentliche Handeln galten ihm als inakzeptabel: Im gesellschaftlichen und politischen Raum könne nur eine universale, für alle nachvollziehbare Moral verpflichtend sein; eine Moral, wie sie sich nur in einem vorbehaltlos freien, rational und pragmatisch geführten Verständigungsprozeß herausbilden könne. Das Modell solch einer rigoros "normativen" säkularen Ordnung entwarf Habermas in seinem philosophischen Hauptwerk "Die Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns".
In seinem neuesten Werk billigt Habermas der Religion nun auf einmal öffentliche Bedeutung zu. Warum? Was hat ihn dazu geführt - so in seinem jüngst bei Suhrkamp erschienenen Band "Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion" - mittlerweile das Ende des Säkularismus, die "postsäkulare Gesellschaft" zu verkünden?
Den Denkanstoß gaben die islamistischen Terrorakte auf New York und Washington vom 11. September 2001 einerseits, andererseits der christliche Fundamentalismus in den USA. Im alten Europa erkennt Habermas besorgt, daß Lust und Motivation zur Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben und am politischen Diskurs rapide abnehmen, die von ihm früher propagierte säkulare Gesellschaft folglich an und in sich selber zerbrechen könnte. Und Habermas ist nicht zuletzt auch deshalb der international meistgelesene, einflußreichste lebende deutsche Philosoph, weil er Endzeitstimmungen aufgreift.
Das entspricht ein Stück weit der Tradition der Frankfurter Schule, deren Hauptrepräsentant in zweiter Generation er ist. Nur: Ihre Begründer - Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer und Herbert Marcuse - erkannten in den komplexen Phänomenen des gesellschaftlichen Wandels den utopischen Horizont: Die säkulare Gesellschaft verwirklicht sich erst in dem, was Adorno mit den Worten der christlichen Offenbarung "das richtige Leben" nennt. Diesem utopischen Gehalt der Theorie gegenüber ist Jürgen Habermas phänomenologisch blind.
Ein weltumspannendes Zeitalter des Säkularismus hat es ohnehin nie gegeben. Die "säkulare Gesellschaft", so der Habermas-Schüler Klaus Eder, ist nur ein - übrigens kaum betretener - "europäischer Sonderweg". Die 70 Millionen evangelischen Christen, die sich in den USA zum Fundamentalismus bekennen, sind nicht - quasi in Fließbandproduktion - über Nacht "wiedergeboren" worden. Gerade wegen der in Amerika seit Anbeginn herrschenden Trennung von Staat und Kirche ist die Religion dort immer ein urlebendiges zentrales Moment des kollektiven bürgerlichen Selbstverständnisses gewesen. Nur so konnte eine breite politisierte christliche Bewegung entstehen. Und ohne die Kontinuität der muslimischen Religiosität ist auch der islamistische Fundamentalismus nicht zu verstehen.
Für religiöse Bewegungen hat Habermas jedoch nie eine Antenne gehabt. Auch jetzt, bei seiner scheinbaren Hinwendung zur postsäkularen Gesellschaft, nimmt er die Religion nur unter dem Aspekt der Politisierung wahr. Im ersten Schritt registrierte er sie vor allem als Störfaktor. Dann ging ihm auf, daß hier eine ungeheure Kraft wirkt, die im säkularen Bereich versiegt ist. Habermas versteht die Religion (nachdem er sozusagen einen Kraftstoffmangel für den säkularen Motor festgestellt hat) als mögliche Ersatzquelle ausschließlich unter dem Aspekt ihrer gesellschaftlichen Funktionalität.
Doch wie will er sich diese Energiequellen nutzbar machen? Nicht nur fundamentalistische religiöse Bewegungen widersetzen sich dem Säkularismus, weil er Lebensräume, Lebensvorstellungen und Lebensweisen zerstört. Doch eben diesen Säkularismus rechtfertigt Habermas nach wie vor mit seiner universalistischen Moralphilosophie; mit dem herrschenden politischen Liberalismus des Westens hat er sich (weitgehend) identifiziert, und außerdem bleibt er dabei: Religiöse Überzeugungen sind im öffentlichen Raum nur akzeptabel, sofern sie sich einer "vorbehaltlos diskursiven Erörterung" unterziehen lassen und ihre Überzeugungen sich als rational begründbar erweisen.
Damit aber ist das Religiöse in seiner Substanz diskreditiert und zum nicht Integrierbaren erklärt. Mit anderen Worten: Die von Habermas geforderte "selbstreflektive Überwindung eines säkularistisch verhärteten und exklusiven Selbstverständnisses der Moderne", die für eine "postsäkulare Gesellschaft" charakteristisch sein soll, mißlingt schon im Ansatz. Der nämlich bleibt der Ideologie des Säkularen verhaftet und fordert die Religion auf, sich zu überwinden.
Wenn Habermas voraussetzt, daß säkulare Menschen sich in ihrem Denken und Handeln vorbehaltlos rational, pragmatisch und öffentlich - der modische Komplexbegriff heißt: transparent - verhalten, legt er wiederum phänomenologische Blindheit an den Tag: Beobachtungen und Erkenntnisse der Anthropologie, Psychologie, Soziologie wie der verhaltensorientierten Wirtschaftswissenschaften belegen nämlich das Gegenteil.
Das Religiöse verweigert sich dem rationalistischen Diskurs. Es beharrt auf seiner fiktiven Wahrheit, oder, um mit Adorno zu argumentieren: Eine Religion, die sich auf etwas anderes als ihren eigenen Wahrheitsgehalt umpolen läßt, untergräbt sich selbst. Wie sollte sie, auf herrschende allgemeine Moralbegriffe reduziert, dem Perspektiven- und Motivationsmangel der "säkularen Gesellschaft" abhelfen können?
Der Autor war international als Verleger tätig und ist heute freier Kulturpublizist. Das Werk, auf das sich Gerhard Beckmann hier bezieht - Jürgen Habermas, "Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion. Philosophische Aufsätze" - ist bei Suhrkamp erschienen
Gerhard Beckmann setzt sich mit dem populärsten deutschen Gegenwartsphilosophen auseinander, der nun die "postsäkulare Gesellschaft" verkündet
von Gerhard Beckmann
Bis vor vier Jahren war Religion für Jürgen Habermas Privatsache. Religiöse Motive für das öffentliche Handeln galten ihm als inakzeptabel: Im gesellschaftlichen und politischen Raum könne nur eine universale, für alle nachvollziehbare Moral verpflichtend sein; eine Moral, wie sie sich nur in einem vorbehaltlos freien, rational und pragmatisch geführten Verständigungsprozeß herausbilden könne. Das Modell solch einer rigoros "normativen" säkularen Ordnung entwarf Habermas in seinem philosophischen Hauptwerk "Die Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns".
In seinem neuesten Werk billigt Habermas der Religion nun auf einmal öffentliche Bedeutung zu. Warum? Was hat ihn dazu geführt - so in seinem jüngst bei Suhrkamp erschienenen Band "Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion" - mittlerweile das Ende des Säkularismus, die "postsäkulare Gesellschaft" zu verkünden?
Den Denkanstoß gaben die islamistischen Terrorakte auf New York und Washington vom 11. September 2001 einerseits, andererseits der christliche Fundamentalismus in den USA. Im alten Europa erkennt Habermas besorgt, daß Lust und Motivation zur Teilnahme am öffentlichen Leben und am politischen Diskurs rapide abnehmen, die von ihm früher propagierte säkulare Gesellschaft folglich an und in sich selber zerbrechen könnte. Und Habermas ist nicht zuletzt auch deshalb der international meistgelesene, einflußreichste lebende deutsche Philosoph, weil er Endzeitstimmungen aufgreift.
Das entspricht ein Stück weit der Tradition der Frankfurter Schule, deren Hauptrepräsentant in zweiter Generation er ist. Nur: Ihre Begründer - Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Max Horkheimer und Herbert Marcuse - erkannten in den komplexen Phänomenen des gesellschaftlichen Wandels den utopischen Horizont: Die säkulare Gesellschaft verwirklicht sich erst in dem, was Adorno mit den Worten der christlichen Offenbarung "das richtige Leben" nennt. Diesem utopischen Gehalt der Theorie gegenüber ist Jürgen Habermas phänomenologisch blind.
Ein weltumspannendes Zeitalter des Säkularismus hat es ohnehin nie gegeben. Die "säkulare Gesellschaft", so der Habermas-Schüler Klaus Eder, ist nur ein - übrigens kaum betretener - "europäischer Sonderweg". Die 70 Millionen evangelischen Christen, die sich in den USA zum Fundamentalismus bekennen, sind nicht - quasi in Fließbandproduktion - über Nacht "wiedergeboren" worden. Gerade wegen der in Amerika seit Anbeginn herrschenden Trennung von Staat und Kirche ist die Religion dort immer ein urlebendiges zentrales Moment des kollektiven bürgerlichen Selbstverständnisses gewesen. Nur so konnte eine breite politisierte christliche Bewegung entstehen. Und ohne die Kontinuität der muslimischen Religiosität ist auch der islamistische Fundamentalismus nicht zu verstehen.
Für religiöse Bewegungen hat Habermas jedoch nie eine Antenne gehabt. Auch jetzt, bei seiner scheinbaren Hinwendung zur postsäkularen Gesellschaft, nimmt er die Religion nur unter dem Aspekt der Politisierung wahr. Im ersten Schritt registrierte er sie vor allem als Störfaktor. Dann ging ihm auf, daß hier eine ungeheure Kraft wirkt, die im säkularen Bereich versiegt ist. Habermas versteht die Religion (nachdem er sozusagen einen Kraftstoffmangel für den säkularen Motor festgestellt hat) als mögliche Ersatzquelle ausschließlich unter dem Aspekt ihrer gesellschaftlichen Funktionalität.
Doch wie will er sich diese Energiequellen nutzbar machen? Nicht nur fundamentalistische religiöse Bewegungen widersetzen sich dem Säkularismus, weil er Lebensräume, Lebensvorstellungen und Lebensweisen zerstört. Doch eben diesen Säkularismus rechtfertigt Habermas nach wie vor mit seiner universalistischen Moralphilosophie; mit dem herrschenden politischen Liberalismus des Westens hat er sich (weitgehend) identifiziert, und außerdem bleibt er dabei: Religiöse Überzeugungen sind im öffentlichen Raum nur akzeptabel, sofern sie sich einer "vorbehaltlos diskursiven Erörterung" unterziehen lassen und ihre Überzeugungen sich als rational begründbar erweisen.
Damit aber ist das Religiöse in seiner Substanz diskreditiert und zum nicht Integrierbaren erklärt. Mit anderen Worten: Die von Habermas geforderte "selbstreflektive Überwindung eines säkularistisch verhärteten und exklusiven Selbstverständnisses der Moderne", die für eine "postsäkulare Gesellschaft" charakteristisch sein soll, mißlingt schon im Ansatz. Der nämlich bleibt der Ideologie des Säkularen verhaftet und fordert die Religion auf, sich zu überwinden.
Wenn Habermas voraussetzt, daß säkulare Menschen sich in ihrem Denken und Handeln vorbehaltlos rational, pragmatisch und öffentlich - der modische Komplexbegriff heißt: transparent - verhalten, legt er wiederum phänomenologische Blindheit an den Tag: Beobachtungen und Erkenntnisse der Anthropologie, Psychologie, Soziologie wie der verhaltensorientierten Wirtschaftswissenschaften belegen nämlich das Gegenteil.
Das Religiöse verweigert sich dem rationalistischen Diskurs. Es beharrt auf seiner fiktiven Wahrheit, oder, um mit Adorno zu argumentieren: Eine Religion, die sich auf etwas anderes als ihren eigenen Wahrheitsgehalt umpolen läßt, untergräbt sich selbst. Wie sollte sie, auf herrschende allgemeine Moralbegriffe reduziert, dem Perspektiven- und Motivationsmangel der "säkularen Gesellschaft" abhelfen können?
Der Autor war international als Verleger tätig und ist heute freier Kulturpublizist. Das Werk, auf das sich Gerhard Beckmann hier bezieht - Jürgen Habermas, "Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion. Philosophische Aufsätze" - ist bei Suhrkamp erschienen
Thursday, July 19, 2001
Introduction to my thesis
Introduction
Habermas’ work from the start has two seemingly contradictory aspects to it. On the one hand he emphasises the natural origin of human beings, their knowledge and reason and adopts a position that though avoiding all kinds of reductionism can be termed as materialist, realist and naturalist. On the other hand Habermas also aims to preserve the distinction between human beings and their surroundings by emphasising the transcending powers of reason and thought.
Habermas’ first mature philosophical work Knowledge and Human Interests starts with a Hegelian note endorsing the essence of Hegel’s critique of Kant. In its claim that knowledge is based on and founded on human interests, the interests that connect human beings to nature and the material world, it is a thoroughly anti Kantian and Marxist-Hegelian work. Habermas’ later weak naturalism is already present in KHI. Habermas’ Frankfurt inaugural lecture on which KHI is based contains a scathing critique of the notion of pure theory divorced from practice. The lecture shows the deep influence of Heidegger. Habermas’ critique of pure theory emanates from the deep anti intellectualism whose roots go back not only to Heidegger’s Being and Time but also to the Marxist and Frankfurt schools’ distrust for pure theory.
In Habermas’ later writings the above results in Habermas’ adoption of a full blown pragmatism and a conception of knowledge that recognises the epistemic value of practice and action.
Hegelian themes are also all pervasive in Habermas’ later work. Habermas’ theory of communicative action is based on the insight that our explicit contact with our fellow beings and the world around us is based on a prior and implicit contact with them. The theory of communicative action gives centrality to the embedded and social character of the process of reaching understanding. The subjects of communicative action are thoroughly socialised and embedded subjects. The theory of communicative action also emphasises the importance of the process as against the product of that process in correctly analysing rational activity.
The above mentioned aspects of Habermas’ work can be seen as his adherence to realism, naturalism and materialism and can be regarded as emanating from his commitment to the Hegelian and Marxist espousal of what has been termed as detranscendentalisation. This aspect also represents Habermas’ anti-Kantianism.
However to conceive the above as standing on its own would be a grave mistake. Habermas’ naturalism, materialism and realism is never metaphysical and he never abandons the transcendental/Kantian standpoint altogether. KHI is also a very Kantian work. It is a critique of the positivistic/scientistic/empiricist tendencies of modern philosophy and in this regard is thoroughly Kantian in its spirit. Positivism is criticised as the abandonment of reflection and KHI is an attempt to articulate the transcendental basis of human knowledge even if it is termed ‘weak’ transcendentalism. Habermas’ later work specially his formal pragmatics, his attempt at articulating the conditions of the possibility of the process of reaching understanding and his method of rational reconstruction bear more than superficial resemblance to Kant’s transcendentalism. This second aspect of Habermas’ work can be justifiably seen as his anti naturalism, anti realism and his commitment to the core of the idealist tradition despite his critique of it.
The two strands of Habermas’ work briefly explained above cannot be understood separately because in a crucial sense they define each other not only negatively but also positively. For Habermas the whole idea of detranscendentalisation is unthinkable without transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation for him is the positive condition of the possibility of any viable transcendentalism in a post metaphysical world.
In order to understand the above we need to understand Habermas’ work as aiming at a synthesis of transcendentalism and detranscendetnalisation, the synthesis which claims to be open ended in that it aims to achieve the synthesis without sublating the tension between the two altogether. Arguably even in KHI Habermas was aiming at such a synthesis which at that time he hoped to find in a new critical science modelled on the Freudian example. The widespread misunderstanding of Habermas’ work stems from the fact that this main task of Habermas’ enterprise is not sufficiently realised and his work is one sidedly branded as either Hegelian Marxist or Kantian depending on the relative emphasis put on the two sides of the synthesis. This is also the reason for the constant misunderstanding of Habermas’ mature work by some as die hard Kantian transcendentalist and by others as Hegelian. Thus understanding this synthesis is necessary for grasping the significance of Habermas’ philosophical enterprise as a whole.
In Habermas’ own work and in secondary literature as well we do not see any sustained effort to understand this synthesis. The main reasons for this in my opinion are two: The first has to do with the way Habermas’ work has developed over the years. Habermas’ philosophical work has largely developed in essay form written for special occasions such as to announce a programme of research, clarify or rebut critics or engage in a dialogue with his chosen interlocutors. Though these works contain all the elements of his synthesis they nowhere contain its elaboration in a sustained manner. The second reason is Habermas’ fateful polemic against French post structuralist/post modernists and the followers of Heidegger. The result of this polemic has been an untenable drift away from the synthesis and undue emphasis on one element of the synthesis at the expense of the other.
Habermas’ opponents have accused him of harbouring untenable Kantianism, transcendentalism and formalism. In other words his opponents have largely focused on Habermas’ transcendentalism and his alleged Kantianism as if it were good enough reason to discredit his whole work as an anachronism. Habermas’ supporters on the other hand tend to put the emphasis on his Hegelianism and his detranscendentalisation project.
The result of both tendencies has been the same, namely that there has been insufficient attempt to understand the synthesis. Nonetheless there is an urgent need to understand the synthesis in order to grasp the significance of Habermas’ work as a whole. Habermas’ work continues to be of the highest importance from the perspective of the modern European and Western thought and to the extent this thought affects the rest of the world, from the perspective of world thinking as well. This alone provides sufficient reason to try to understand his work as a whole.
Habermas in his recent work has provided on more than one occasion sufficient hints which could provide the basis for an attempt to understand his theoretical philosophy as a whole rather than just from one sided perspectives. Important in this respect has been Habermas recent frequent use of the term transcendence from within/immanent transcendence. The present dissertation is based on a conviction that a thorough understanding of the notion of transcendence from within may facilitate and provide the basis for understanding the relation between transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation in the work of Habermas.
Apart from the obvious need to fill in a significant lacuna within Habermasian scholarship the overall movement in European philosophy also demands and will benefit from the emergence of an overall picture of Habermasian synthesis. I shall briefly mention three such ‘events’ within European and Anglo-American scholarship that point towards increasing interest in understanding the relation between detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism and in the phenomenon of transcendence:
•In French philosophical theological scholarship the phenomenon of transcendence and its different interpretations have acquired great attention from philosophers and philosophical minded theologians from a variety of perspectives. A debate has emerged between those who deem that transcendence without God is possible and those who deny the possibility of any such transcendence. Moreover, an eminent Foucault scholar Béatrice Han has developed an interpretation of Foucault that reads him as developing a conception of transcendence from within, even if he does not use exactly the same terminology or methodology as Habermas. Han is currently working on a book entitled Transcendence without Religion, which uses the work of Foucault and Heidegger to develop a notion of transcendence from within.
•In the Anglo American philosophical scene it is safe to say that mainstream analytic philosophy is still largely dominated by philosophical naturalism (in Habermas’ terminology strong naturalism). However the hold of philosophical naturalism on Anglo American philosophy has been vigorously contested from within by influential philosophers even if they are still minorities. In this context the work of John McDowell is of great philosophical import. McDowell, while using resources almost entirely different from that of Habermas has developed a version of soft naturalism that resembles very much in its aims and structure to that of Habermas.
•Finally Mark Sacks and his colleagues are working on a project which aims to understand the relation between philosophical naturalism and transcendentalism.
All these events attest to my conviction that there is a growing interest in understanding the relation between what can be broadly termed as detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism. An interpretation of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within can make a contribution to this ongoing concern and debate.
The thesis then is an interpretation of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within. It is hoped that such an interpretation would help us understand the relation between transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation in Habermas’ work as well his overall synthesis and it’s logic. However the thesis does not make any claim to provide a full account of the relation between detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism or Habermas’ synthesis. Moreover the dissertation does not discuss Habermas’ notion of transcendentalism or detranscendentalisation as such but rather presupposes a detailed account of them. The purpose of the thesis is rather to understand Habermas’ claim that detranscendentalisation itself can provide the basis of preserving certain distinctions that are the basis of transcendentalism. It is hoped that a thorough understanding of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within can provide the basis for any such understanding.
Finally the dissertation is an interpretation of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within and no attempt has been made to assess the viability of any such interpretation. It is hoped that by telling the story itself one would have contributed to the subsequent discussions which can evaluate the story from different perspectives. However some general remarks are ventured in the conclusion to indicate possible lines of critique.
The dissertation is divided into 7 chapters. The first three chapters are introductory and provide the basis for further discussion in the next four chapters which are reconstructions of different aspects of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within.
In chapter 1, I give a general introduction to the idea of transcendence from within by introducing the notion of Kantian pragmatism. Habermas’ move towards pragmatism can be understood as his adoption of a thoroughgoing detranscendentalisation of the conception of knowledge and experience and their deintellectualisation. Habermas’ pragmatism can be seen as his attempt to overcome the dichotomy between knowledge and action, and knowledge and experience. The overall effect of this is to emphasise the overall continuity between human beings and their surroundings, their ways of beings (passivity?) and their ways of acting.
However, though Habermas rejects Kantian dichotomies, he wants to preserve the relevant distinctions emphasised by Kant and others between knowledge and actions, language and experience. It follows from the above that Habermas must show how the relevant distinction emerges from within overall continuities. I further explain this by direct reference to the notions of transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation. The emphasis on detranscendentalisation means that Habermas intends to reembed the Kantian subject within its surroundings as his emphasis on the natural origins of the subject and his notion of socialised individuality shows. Similarly Habermas brings the Kantian realm of intelligible down from the heaven of otherworldly to the earth of “this” world.
However Habermas also wants to preserve the transcending powers of reason and the Kantian subject as well as the Kantian realm of intelligible. Habermas wants to do this while stripping these conceptions of their otherworldly origins and connotations in Kant. Habermas can combine the theme of detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism only if he can show that the transcending power of reason can emerge from within. That is, he must show that the process of detranscendentalisation is also the process which establishes the transcending power of reason and the subject. The notion of transcendence from within conveys this very idea as is the case with the notion of individuation through socialisation.
In chapter 2, I introduce the idea of weak naturalism. Weak naturalism continues the overall thrust of Habermas’ enterprise to establish continuities between human beings and their surroundings. However, Habermas’ rejection of ‘strong’ naturalism means that he does not want to collapse the distinction between human beings and their surroundings altogether. In our terms, although he wants to overcome the dichotomy between human beings and nature he does not want to abolish the distinction between the two. For this reason Habermas must show how the distinction between nature and human beings emerges from within. The hypothesis of weak naturalism aims to provide the basis for establishing such a link from within. The idea of transcendence from within operates at the level at which ‘social’ has already clearly emerged and has been demarcated from the rest of nature and when we already possess propositionally differentiated language. However weak naturalism provides the ontological underpinnings to the idea of transcendence from within by putting forth a working hypothesis that human beings and society have emerged from ‘nature in itself’ in the long process of evolution. Weak naturalism also provides the key link between the ‘intersubjective’ side of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within and the ‘objective’ side.
In chapter 3, I explore Habermas’ attempt to go beyond empiricism and linguistic idealism. I introduce the issue by briefly considering Habermas’ critique of Quine and Heidegger respectively. Empiricism is criticised on the grounds that it totally dispenses with the participant’s perspective and relies exclusively on the observational model. However human language and its primordial relation with the world cannot be understood from the perspective of the observer. By trying to understand language and our relation with the world solely from the observer’s perspective empiricism ends up with an instrumental conception of language and a causal understanding of our relation with the world.
Heidegger on the other hand gives so much prominence to the holistic aspect of language and of our primordial relation with the world that he neglects the role of causality and innerworldly learning experiences altogether. Habermas on the other hand wants to give both the observer perspective and the participant perspective their due. Habermas particularly emphasises the capability of innerworldly learning experiences to revise our linguistic knowledge. In this context Habermas introduces the concept of the indirect effect of our innerworldly experiences on our linguistic knowledge. While innerworldly experiences cannot play any direct role in the revision of linguistic knowledge they can play an indirect role. Thus what is needed is to go beyond the one sided reductionism of Quine and Heidegger and to establish a dialectical yet open ended relation between the linguistic knowledge and innerworldly experiences, between implicit and explicit knowledge and between the primordial and causal.
In chapter 4, I introduce the idea of the ontological conception of freedom in Habermas. The idea is not explicitly present in Habermas; however, I argue that it is necessary for developing a conception of transcendence from within. The idea of transcendence from within requires that the dichotomy between freedom and limits be overcome and limits should be seen positively as the conditions of the possibility of freedom and not just negatively as hindrances. I argue that though the idea is not explicitly present in Habermas it is implicitly working in his analysis.
In chapter 5, I start reconstructing the idea of transcendence from within directly. In chapter 5 and 6 I reconstruct the idea from the ‘subjective’ angle, i.e. from the side of language, lifeworld and subjects capable of speech and action. In chapter 7, I construct the idea from the ‘objective’ angle, i.e. from the side of the objective world and nature and reality as a whole.
In chapter 5, I concentrate on a single meaning of transcendence from within from the subjective side. I argue that Habermas wants to maintain Kant’s distinction between causality of nature and the causality of reason (freedom), which in contemporary terms can be understood as the distinction between the space of reason and the space of law, without positing a Kantian otherworldly realm of pure intelligibility. In other words the distinction between the causality of nature and causality of reason must be established from within. I aim to do this by concentrating on Habermas’ theory of communicative action, especially on his distinction between strategic and communicative action. I argue that, for Habermas, the space of reason and Kant’s realm of intelligibility emerge when the participants ‘lock’ themselves within the space created by communicative action by pursuing the aim of mutual understanding with their co participants without reservation and without regard for any instrumental and strategic aims. Within such a space, claims Habermas, a this worldly version of Kant’s space of reason can be experienced as long as one remains within that space by solely aiming at the purpose of mutual understanding and disregarding strategic aims.
In chapter 6, I build on the analysis in chapter 5, further exploring related meanings of transcendence from within from the subjective side. In this context I explain how unconditionality emerges from within conditional and without positing unconditioned, and how validity emerges from within the factual. In other words I explain the emergence of the critical force from within the factual. In the same manner I also explain how generality emerges from within particular. In explaining the above I discuss Habermas’ notion of idealisations as the conditions of the possibility of communicative action and argumentation in general and how these idealisations set in motion in this world the resources of Kant’s intelligible realm without positing any separate otherworldly realm of intelligible.
In chapter 7, I explore the meaning of transcendence from within from the ‘objective’ side. Until recently Habermas’ strategy for transcendence from within was solely explained from the ‘subjective’ side. The theory of communicative action presupposes the notion of objectivity only as a formal concept. However Habermas’ recent move away from an epistemic conception of truth and his development of a full blown pragmatic conception of knowledge has helped him to explain the role played by nature and objective world in making transcendence from within possible. Habermas now sees a more pro-active role of the world in making transcendence from within possible. Although there still remains a difference in kind between the objections of participants within argumentation and the objections of the world and nature, in that the world and reality object to our claims only figuratively and indirectly in that if it goes along with our claims and our linguistic knowledge or refuse to cooperate with us, a more prominent role is given to both objective world and nature in making transcendence from within than was the case previously.
By resisting our empirical as well as linguistic knowledge the world and nature create the possibility of transcending our existing empirical knowledge from within. The world and nature also provide the possibility of overcoming the bridges between historical times by overcoming the distance between the two different historical epochs from within. The world and nature provide the continuum across historical time which answers that changes across historical time are not haphazard and that learning is possible across historical times.
The world as well as reality as a whole does not only provide the basis for transcendence from within it also forms the basis of objectivity of not only our empirical knowledge and factual claims but also of our linguistic knowledge. If empirical knowledge and linguistic knowledge can stand the resistance of reality they pass the test of objectivity and ensure their own survival. The knowledges that cannot pass this test are transcended in turn.
The above ensures that the claims justified in the space of reason are not mere chimera of our imagination. However since there is an ultimate gap between reality and language and we do not have direct and immediate access across to the naked reality and since reality can only unsettle our beliefs indirectly and can never directly prove or disprove them, the objectivity remains fallibilistic and open ended.
Thus for Habermas transcendence from within is the result of an open ended but complex dialectic between language, action, world and the subjects capable of speech and action. Furthermore it presupposes modern (post conventional) fallibilism and open endedness towards ourselves, others and our own world. It also requires presupposing the ‘weak’ naturalist hypothesis which though, a hypothesis is necessary for assuming continuity between language, action and world, essential for proving the possibility of transcendence from within.
In brief concluding comments I speculate about possible objections to Habermas’ strategy for establishing the possibility of transcendence from within. I suggest that one of the main weaknesses of Habermas’ enterprise might be the enormous amount of presuppositions that it involves. Furthermore I suggest that it has implications which might lead to the abandonment of any substantive conception of truth.
Ali Rizvi (2006), draft please do not quote.
Habermas’ work from the start has two seemingly contradictory aspects to it. On the one hand he emphasises the natural origin of human beings, their knowledge and reason and adopts a position that though avoiding all kinds of reductionism can be termed as materialist, realist and naturalist. On the other hand Habermas also aims to preserve the distinction between human beings and their surroundings by emphasising the transcending powers of reason and thought.
Habermas’ first mature philosophical work Knowledge and Human Interests starts with a Hegelian note endorsing the essence of Hegel’s critique of Kant. In its claim that knowledge is based on and founded on human interests, the interests that connect human beings to nature and the material world, it is a thoroughly anti Kantian and Marxist-Hegelian work. Habermas’ later weak naturalism is already present in KHI. Habermas’ Frankfurt inaugural lecture on which KHI is based contains a scathing critique of the notion of pure theory divorced from practice. The lecture shows the deep influence of Heidegger. Habermas’ critique of pure theory emanates from the deep anti intellectualism whose roots go back not only to Heidegger’s Being and Time but also to the Marxist and Frankfurt schools’ distrust for pure theory.
In Habermas’ later writings the above results in Habermas’ adoption of a full blown pragmatism and a conception of knowledge that recognises the epistemic value of practice and action.
Hegelian themes are also all pervasive in Habermas’ later work. Habermas’ theory of communicative action is based on the insight that our explicit contact with our fellow beings and the world around us is based on a prior and implicit contact with them. The theory of communicative action gives centrality to the embedded and social character of the process of reaching understanding. The subjects of communicative action are thoroughly socialised and embedded subjects. The theory of communicative action also emphasises the importance of the process as against the product of that process in correctly analysing rational activity.
The above mentioned aspects of Habermas’ work can be seen as his adherence to realism, naturalism and materialism and can be regarded as emanating from his commitment to the Hegelian and Marxist espousal of what has been termed as detranscendentalisation. This aspect also represents Habermas’ anti-Kantianism.
However to conceive the above as standing on its own would be a grave mistake. Habermas’ naturalism, materialism and realism is never metaphysical and he never abandons the transcendental/Kantian standpoint altogether. KHI is also a very Kantian work. It is a critique of the positivistic/scientistic/empiricist tendencies of modern philosophy and in this regard is thoroughly Kantian in its spirit. Positivism is criticised as the abandonment of reflection and KHI is an attempt to articulate the transcendental basis of human knowledge even if it is termed ‘weak’ transcendentalism. Habermas’ later work specially his formal pragmatics, his attempt at articulating the conditions of the possibility of the process of reaching understanding and his method of rational reconstruction bear more than superficial resemblance to Kant’s transcendentalism. This second aspect of Habermas’ work can be justifiably seen as his anti naturalism, anti realism and his commitment to the core of the idealist tradition despite his critique of it.
The two strands of Habermas’ work briefly explained above cannot be understood separately because in a crucial sense they define each other not only negatively but also positively. For Habermas the whole idea of detranscendentalisation is unthinkable without transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation for him is the positive condition of the possibility of any viable transcendentalism in a post metaphysical world.
In order to understand the above we need to understand Habermas’ work as aiming at a synthesis of transcendentalism and detranscendetnalisation, the synthesis which claims to be open ended in that it aims to achieve the synthesis without sublating the tension between the two altogether. Arguably even in KHI Habermas was aiming at such a synthesis which at that time he hoped to find in a new critical science modelled on the Freudian example. The widespread misunderstanding of Habermas’ work stems from the fact that this main task of Habermas’ enterprise is not sufficiently realised and his work is one sidedly branded as either Hegelian Marxist or Kantian depending on the relative emphasis put on the two sides of the synthesis. This is also the reason for the constant misunderstanding of Habermas’ mature work by some as die hard Kantian transcendentalist and by others as Hegelian. Thus understanding this synthesis is necessary for grasping the significance of Habermas’ philosophical enterprise as a whole.
In Habermas’ own work and in secondary literature as well we do not see any sustained effort to understand this synthesis. The main reasons for this in my opinion are two: The first has to do with the way Habermas’ work has developed over the years. Habermas’ philosophical work has largely developed in essay form written for special occasions such as to announce a programme of research, clarify or rebut critics or engage in a dialogue with his chosen interlocutors. Though these works contain all the elements of his synthesis they nowhere contain its elaboration in a sustained manner. The second reason is Habermas’ fateful polemic against French post structuralist/post modernists and the followers of Heidegger. The result of this polemic has been an untenable drift away from the synthesis and undue emphasis on one element of the synthesis at the expense of the other.
Habermas’ opponents have accused him of harbouring untenable Kantianism, transcendentalism and formalism. In other words his opponents have largely focused on Habermas’ transcendentalism and his alleged Kantianism as if it were good enough reason to discredit his whole work as an anachronism. Habermas’ supporters on the other hand tend to put the emphasis on his Hegelianism and his detranscendentalisation project.
The result of both tendencies has been the same, namely that there has been insufficient attempt to understand the synthesis. Nonetheless there is an urgent need to understand the synthesis in order to grasp the significance of Habermas’ work as a whole. Habermas’ work continues to be of the highest importance from the perspective of the modern European and Western thought and to the extent this thought affects the rest of the world, from the perspective of world thinking as well. This alone provides sufficient reason to try to understand his work as a whole.
Habermas in his recent work has provided on more than one occasion sufficient hints which could provide the basis for an attempt to understand his theoretical philosophy as a whole rather than just from one sided perspectives. Important in this respect has been Habermas recent frequent use of the term transcendence from within/immanent transcendence. The present dissertation is based on a conviction that a thorough understanding of the notion of transcendence from within may facilitate and provide the basis for understanding the relation between transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation in the work of Habermas.
Apart from the obvious need to fill in a significant lacuna within Habermasian scholarship the overall movement in European philosophy also demands and will benefit from the emergence of an overall picture of Habermasian synthesis. I shall briefly mention three such ‘events’ within European and Anglo-American scholarship that point towards increasing interest in understanding the relation between detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism and in the phenomenon of transcendence:
•In French philosophical theological scholarship the phenomenon of transcendence and its different interpretations have acquired great attention from philosophers and philosophical minded theologians from a variety of perspectives. A debate has emerged between those who deem that transcendence without God is possible and those who deny the possibility of any such transcendence. Moreover, an eminent Foucault scholar Béatrice Han has developed an interpretation of Foucault that reads him as developing a conception of transcendence from within, even if he does not use exactly the same terminology or methodology as Habermas. Han is currently working on a book entitled Transcendence without Religion, which uses the work of Foucault and Heidegger to develop a notion of transcendence from within.
•In the Anglo American philosophical scene it is safe to say that mainstream analytic philosophy is still largely dominated by philosophical naturalism (in Habermas’ terminology strong naturalism). However the hold of philosophical naturalism on Anglo American philosophy has been vigorously contested from within by influential philosophers even if they are still minorities. In this context the work of John McDowell is of great philosophical import. McDowell, while using resources almost entirely different from that of Habermas has developed a version of soft naturalism that resembles very much in its aims and structure to that of Habermas.
•Finally Mark Sacks and his colleagues are working on a project which aims to understand the relation between philosophical naturalism and transcendentalism.
All these events attest to my conviction that there is a growing interest in understanding the relation between what can be broadly termed as detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism. An interpretation of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within can make a contribution to this ongoing concern and debate.
The thesis then is an interpretation of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within. It is hoped that such an interpretation would help us understand the relation between transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation in Habermas’ work as well his overall synthesis and it’s logic. However the thesis does not make any claim to provide a full account of the relation between detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism or Habermas’ synthesis. Moreover the dissertation does not discuss Habermas’ notion of transcendentalism or detranscendentalisation as such but rather presupposes a detailed account of them. The purpose of the thesis is rather to understand Habermas’ claim that detranscendentalisation itself can provide the basis of preserving certain distinctions that are the basis of transcendentalism. It is hoped that a thorough understanding of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within can provide the basis for any such understanding.
Finally the dissertation is an interpretation of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within and no attempt has been made to assess the viability of any such interpretation. It is hoped that by telling the story itself one would have contributed to the subsequent discussions which can evaluate the story from different perspectives. However some general remarks are ventured in the conclusion to indicate possible lines of critique.
The dissertation is divided into 7 chapters. The first three chapters are introductory and provide the basis for further discussion in the next four chapters which are reconstructions of different aspects of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within.
In chapter 1, I give a general introduction to the idea of transcendence from within by introducing the notion of Kantian pragmatism. Habermas’ move towards pragmatism can be understood as his adoption of a thoroughgoing detranscendentalisation of the conception of knowledge and experience and their deintellectualisation. Habermas’ pragmatism can be seen as his attempt to overcome the dichotomy between knowledge and action, and knowledge and experience. The overall effect of this is to emphasise the overall continuity between human beings and their surroundings, their ways of beings (passivity?) and their ways of acting.
However, though Habermas rejects Kantian dichotomies, he wants to preserve the relevant distinctions emphasised by Kant and others between knowledge and actions, language and experience. It follows from the above that Habermas must show how the relevant distinction emerges from within overall continuities. I further explain this by direct reference to the notions of transcendentalism and detranscendentalisation. The emphasis on detranscendentalisation means that Habermas intends to reembed the Kantian subject within its surroundings as his emphasis on the natural origins of the subject and his notion of socialised individuality shows. Similarly Habermas brings the Kantian realm of intelligible down from the heaven of otherworldly to the earth of “this” world.
However Habermas also wants to preserve the transcending powers of reason and the Kantian subject as well as the Kantian realm of intelligible. Habermas wants to do this while stripping these conceptions of their otherworldly origins and connotations in Kant. Habermas can combine the theme of detranscendentalisation and transcendentalism only if he can show that the transcending power of reason can emerge from within. That is, he must show that the process of detranscendentalisation is also the process which establishes the transcending power of reason and the subject. The notion of transcendence from within conveys this very idea as is the case with the notion of individuation through socialisation.
In chapter 2, I introduce the idea of weak naturalism. Weak naturalism continues the overall thrust of Habermas’ enterprise to establish continuities between human beings and their surroundings. However, Habermas’ rejection of ‘strong’ naturalism means that he does not want to collapse the distinction between human beings and their surroundings altogether. In our terms, although he wants to overcome the dichotomy between human beings and nature he does not want to abolish the distinction between the two. For this reason Habermas must show how the distinction between nature and human beings emerges from within. The hypothesis of weak naturalism aims to provide the basis for establishing such a link from within. The idea of transcendence from within operates at the level at which ‘social’ has already clearly emerged and has been demarcated from the rest of nature and when we already possess propositionally differentiated language. However weak naturalism provides the ontological underpinnings to the idea of transcendence from within by putting forth a working hypothesis that human beings and society have emerged from ‘nature in itself’ in the long process of evolution. Weak naturalism also provides the key link between the ‘intersubjective’ side of Habermas’ notion of transcendence from within and the ‘objective’ side.
In chapter 3, I explore Habermas’ attempt to go beyond empiricism and linguistic idealism. I introduce the issue by briefly considering Habermas’ critique of Quine and Heidegger respectively. Empiricism is criticised on the grounds that it totally dispenses with the participant’s perspective and relies exclusively on the observational model. However human language and its primordial relation with the world cannot be understood from the perspective of the observer. By trying to understand language and our relation with the world solely from the observer’s perspective empiricism ends up with an instrumental conception of language and a causal understanding of our relation with the world.
Heidegger on the other hand gives so much prominence to the holistic aspect of language and of our primordial relation with the world that he neglects the role of causality and innerworldly learning experiences altogether. Habermas on the other hand wants to give both the observer perspective and the participant perspective their due. Habermas particularly emphasises the capability of innerworldly learning experiences to revise our linguistic knowledge. In this context Habermas introduces the concept of the indirect effect of our innerworldly experiences on our linguistic knowledge. While innerworldly experiences cannot play any direct role in the revision of linguistic knowledge they can play an indirect role. Thus what is needed is to go beyond the one sided reductionism of Quine and Heidegger and to establish a dialectical yet open ended relation between the linguistic knowledge and innerworldly experiences, between implicit and explicit knowledge and between the primordial and causal.
In chapter 4, I introduce the idea of the ontological conception of freedom in Habermas. The idea is not explicitly present in Habermas; however, I argue that it is necessary for developing a conception of transcendence from within. The idea of transcendence from within requires that the dichotomy between freedom and limits be overcome and limits should be seen positively as the conditions of the possibility of freedom and not just negatively as hindrances. I argue that though the idea is not explicitly present in Habermas it is implicitly working in his analysis.
In chapter 5, I start reconstructing the idea of transcendence from within directly. In chapter 5 and 6 I reconstruct the idea from the ‘subjective’ angle, i.e. from the side of language, lifeworld and subjects capable of speech and action. In chapter 7, I construct the idea from the ‘objective’ angle, i.e. from the side of the objective world and nature and reality as a whole.
In chapter 5, I concentrate on a single meaning of transcendence from within from the subjective side. I argue that Habermas wants to maintain Kant’s distinction between causality of nature and the causality of reason (freedom), which in contemporary terms can be understood as the distinction between the space of reason and the space of law, without positing a Kantian otherworldly realm of pure intelligibility. In other words the distinction between the causality of nature and causality of reason must be established from within. I aim to do this by concentrating on Habermas’ theory of communicative action, especially on his distinction between strategic and communicative action. I argue that, for Habermas, the space of reason and Kant’s realm of intelligibility emerge when the participants ‘lock’ themselves within the space created by communicative action by pursuing the aim of mutual understanding with their co participants without reservation and without regard for any instrumental and strategic aims. Within such a space, claims Habermas, a this worldly version of Kant’s space of reason can be experienced as long as one remains within that space by solely aiming at the purpose of mutual understanding and disregarding strategic aims.
In chapter 6, I build on the analysis in chapter 5, further exploring related meanings of transcendence from within from the subjective side. In this context I explain how unconditionality emerges from within conditional and without positing unconditioned, and how validity emerges from within the factual. In other words I explain the emergence of the critical force from within the factual. In the same manner I also explain how generality emerges from within particular. In explaining the above I discuss Habermas’ notion of idealisations as the conditions of the possibility of communicative action and argumentation in general and how these idealisations set in motion in this world the resources of Kant’s intelligible realm without positing any separate otherworldly realm of intelligible.
In chapter 7, I explore the meaning of transcendence from within from the ‘objective’ side. Until recently Habermas’ strategy for transcendence from within was solely explained from the ‘subjective’ side. The theory of communicative action presupposes the notion of objectivity only as a formal concept. However Habermas’ recent move away from an epistemic conception of truth and his development of a full blown pragmatic conception of knowledge has helped him to explain the role played by nature and objective world in making transcendence from within possible. Habermas now sees a more pro-active role of the world in making transcendence from within possible. Although there still remains a difference in kind between the objections of participants within argumentation and the objections of the world and nature, in that the world and reality object to our claims only figuratively and indirectly in that if it goes along with our claims and our linguistic knowledge or refuse to cooperate with us, a more prominent role is given to both objective world and nature in making transcendence from within than was the case previously.
By resisting our empirical as well as linguistic knowledge the world and nature create the possibility of transcending our existing empirical knowledge from within. The world and nature also provide the possibility of overcoming the bridges between historical times by overcoming the distance between the two different historical epochs from within. The world and nature provide the continuum across historical time which answers that changes across historical time are not haphazard and that learning is possible across historical times.
The world as well as reality as a whole does not only provide the basis for transcendence from within it also forms the basis of objectivity of not only our empirical knowledge and factual claims but also of our linguistic knowledge. If empirical knowledge and linguistic knowledge can stand the resistance of reality they pass the test of objectivity and ensure their own survival. The knowledges that cannot pass this test are transcended in turn.
The above ensures that the claims justified in the space of reason are not mere chimera of our imagination. However since there is an ultimate gap between reality and language and we do not have direct and immediate access across to the naked reality and since reality can only unsettle our beliefs indirectly and can never directly prove or disprove them, the objectivity remains fallibilistic and open ended.
Thus for Habermas transcendence from within is the result of an open ended but complex dialectic between language, action, world and the subjects capable of speech and action. Furthermore it presupposes modern (post conventional) fallibilism and open endedness towards ourselves, others and our own world. It also requires presupposing the ‘weak’ naturalist hypothesis which though, a hypothesis is necessary for assuming continuity between language, action and world, essential for proving the possibility of transcendence from within.
In brief concluding comments I speculate about possible objections to Habermas’ strategy for establishing the possibility of transcendence from within. I suggest that one of the main weaknesses of Habermas’ enterprise might be the enormous amount of presuppositions that it involves. Furthermore I suggest that it has implications which might lead to the abandonment of any substantive conception of truth.
Ali Rizvi (2006), draft please do not quote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
