gedavis.com home page button conceptual inquiry main page

 

Habermas Page Facebook link Studies
gary e. davis
  june 2017 RESOURCES FOR HABERMASIAN STUDIES
 
 

Some of the webpage discussions below (beginning with “reason for democracy,” after a selective list of blog posts) are more practically-oriented () than others which are theoretical () or that tend to become very conceptual (). I should say that these discussions are not expository (except the first one, “reason for democracy”), but a good sense of Habermasian thinking results (if I may say so). Note that one item here is a link to 13 other discussions: “discursive stances.”

Some blog postings which are especially focused on Habermas are highlighted here. The first ones here are most introductory; the last two are least introductory. June: 30 other postings which aren’t listed here, but are very relatedly Habermasian—directly and indirectly, theoretically and practically—are linked at the end of this listing: “a manifold of interfaces...,” which covers six years (not Yahoo Group).

Interview of Habermas on philosophy’s missions | October 2015
looking back: Habermas and “lifeworld” | April 2011

Teleological aspects are part of any action | August 2013
philosopher acting as public intellectual | September 2016
communicative community: the basis of good systems | May 2014
Habermas and the global metropolitan lattice | March 2017
Habermas and the international EU as it is | April 2014
Habermas’ ...Detranscendentalized ‘Use of Reason’ | March 2014
thinking after Habermas | December 2010
a manifold of interfaces as a manifold appropriativity: 30 postings | 2005—2011

Believe it or not, all of this—postings, conceptual discourse, practical discourse—can be shown to conceptually cohere rigorously. But systematic presentation hasn’t been my intent here (yet). These are reports from the field, so to speak, showing how I think “with” Habermas: practically, yet very conceptually in terms of his work, yet also differently—which I’ve called differential identification. This entire set of discussions could be aptly titled “philosophy after Habermas,” in the double sense of ‘after’: in light of and moving on.

At the bottom of the page is a listing of other postings that began at the Facebook/Habermas project and moved to revised form in a blog. These aren’t merely links to “other resources from the Facebook project.” I hope that topical postings show good reason for regarding “theory” (integrative conceptuality?) as valuable—good reason for later moving “up” to theory—and also are examples of post-theoretical value or shared ground (moving “down” to so-called “making a difference”). I do what I can to exemplify a “manifold of interfaces.”


  January 2008
  reason for democracy
  This synopsis of Habermas’s communicative theory of democracy was intended for a reader who is engaged with social theory, but not familiar with Habermas’s basic social-theoretical position that is developed into overt political theory.
 
  July 2014
  philosophical living as event of appropriation
  Habermas was interviewed last June in an unusually comprehensive way (though not especially long). I’m offering a long commentary, divided into eight topics.
 
  2004-2008, 2014
  discursive stances, re: Our evolving
  Here are 13 studies (or sets of pages) involving Habermasian discursive practice, mostly in chronological order: earlier at top, a break of six years (2006-14: doing other kinds of conceptual work), then more May 2014.
 
  August 2003
  searching for sustainability
  Bryan Norton provides an exemplary sense of pragmatic policy formation that is directly congruent with my Habermasian sense of progressively applying conceptual work to important problems.
 
  May 2003
  a brief sense of an American pragmatism
  After many years of Habermasian engagement, I sought to render some conceptual issues “after” him—in light of, yet apart. I didn’t do anything with the discussion, 2003, but happened across it again in March, 2014; and feel that it remains valid (after some revision, which I’ve made). Its parts will be split into separate pages, revised, and expanded.
 
  October 2003
  reason: reflexivity and rationalization
  From mid-1997 through recent years, I’ve used good chances for online discussion in order to develop and clarify my sense of the “after, but the extended online conversation stayed hidden in e-mail archives. Most of it remains there. But this discussion exemplifies my kindred, collegial apartness in conceptually specific terms relative to one of Habermas’s most important presentations.
 
  October 2003 / June 2014
  Habermas and truth
  October 2003 was an intense month. It was fun!—a zenith in shamelessly prospecting (re: an unrevisable medium) critical hermeneutical practice as discursive inquiry. Those discussion-list sets of dense conceptual prospecting were revised in 2014.
 
  June 2014
  Habermas as philosopher
  Over five years elapsed between the last discussion in most of the above set of 13 and this one.
 
  August 2013 / May 2014
  philosophy after Habermas
  The years have been fruitful. A story of it all would be—will be—a good one, I feel.
 
  March 2014
  In virtue of ethical pragmatics
  This is oriented by a close reading of Habermas’s essay “Norms and Values: On Hilary Putnam’s Kantian Pragmatism,” Truth and Justification (MIT Press, 2003). It’s a workbook-like discussion, in effect written to someone familiar with Habermas’s work who might have that essay in front of her/him. I’m thinking vis-à-vis Habermas’s essay about my sense of pragmatism, tacitly in light of contemporary psychology. Though it’s dense in places, I’m not trying to be difficult; I’m just doing what I love to do, in my own way, and I’m sharing that. My discussion anticipates upcoming work (extracting themes from this), which is largely already conceptualized and will express an interdomainal (i.e., trans-interdisciplinary) sense of philosophy (a discursive consilience?). As a carefully written exercise, it exemplifies what I’ve meant elsewhere by “philosophy after Habermas.”
I enjoy thinking in differential identification with a text’s lead—“collegial apartness,” I’ve called it. Here, I’m disagreeing with Habermas extensively, because his sociocentric approach to philosophy remains highly engaging. I can’t imagine not keeping his thought integral to my evolving Project.
 
  April 2017
  other postings that began at the Facebook/Habermas project
    conceptual inquiry:
about lifeworldliness
what is intelligibility?
drawing thought beyond transcendenalism
    cultivating humanity:
contributing to a “Conversation of Humanity”
cultivating humanity
on solidarity: culturally-based, not politically
what works in social policy
Internet and Public Sphere
    sustainability:
dialogue and “our common home”
sustainable global growth
environmental engineering
United Nations
    internationality and law:
the challenge of fruitfully distributed authority
how does inter-regionality evolve?
discourse theory and international law
 



 
Be fair. © 2017, g. e. davis