tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259704.post112678945718131257..comments2023-03-20T02:38:22.109+11:00Comments on Habermasian Reflections: Honneth interviewAli Rizvihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18007625357436861947noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8259704.post-1126844768554464042005-09-16T14:26:00.000+10:002005-09-16T14:26:00.000+10:00The Future of Critical Theory: In Your FaceNow the...<B>The Future of Critical Theory</B>: In Your Face<BR/><BR/>Now <I>there's</I> a man who needs a public relations consultant. <BR/><BR/>He's displaying either:<BR/>• a clueless sense of the camera—perhaps metonymic of the future of Critical Theory; see Honneth's own estimation of Critical Theory as the last chapter of <I>The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory—Honneth is</I> the last chapter of Critical Theory? See also: James Bohman's conclusion to his “<A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/" REL="nofollow">critical theory</A>” article in the online <I>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</I>: Critical Theory disappears into cultural studies ("critical theory" with a small 'c', like the article itself, which is largely about Critical Theory)<BR/><BR/>OR<BR/><BR/>• deliberately, in the photo, representing the above condition: Critical Theory's lack of hope, due to its being more or less left behind by history. <BR/><BR/>Contrary some self-designated "Critical Theorists" (not thinking of you, Ali; I have no idea what your affinity is for "Critical Theory") showing fetishism for 20th century problematics, <I> Habermas </I> isn't trying to keep Critical Theory per se alive. Rather, he's working at the leading edge of 21st century thought: cosmopolitan law, the future of human nature, and the interface of religion and late modernity. The point is for Critical Theory to take its lead from 21st century problematics. Critical Theory has no future that doesn't <I>really</I> go through Habermas' work; but few "Critical Theorists" get beyond the surface of Habermasian work.<BR/><BR/>Consider the Honneth quote above: Is it a "multi-dimensional concept" and "more intellectual work" that's needed <I>by government</I>? Or is this really needed by Critical Theory itself, i.e., Critical Theory doesn't comprehend how the multi-dimensionality of government <I>really looks</I> relative to the complexity of social systems. The very notion of "party theoreticians" is bankrupt.<BR/><BR/><I>Good-bye!</I><BR/><BR/>GaryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com