and he is talking about??? communicative structures to be important? ... Foucault was about power and he was a homsxual who had himself whooped in new orleans gay bars, omg, philosophers are crazy, they just cant see it?!
@thebloads just have someone subtitle this for all convenience man, i mean hell, just needs an extra girl to scoop some drool off his face when he is eating, other then that subtitles will solve this problem. :D
@iMac0906 He says, "I had the opportunity to grow up in post-war Germany within a generation of rather productive sociologists and philosophers. Then you see that I couldn't have, probably, written any book without being part of a generational discourse in my country, so that I can accept such a prize only if I think that it is also dedicated to a whole academic cohort and context, without which I wouldn't have become so well read."
the problem with modern intellectuals like Habermas is that they have become businessmen. they only care about selling their vapid, insipid books that the gullible undergraduate students buys by the truck load thinking he'll find something deep in it.
@cirosuperiore -- Did you listen to what he said? And what do you expect philosophers to do, recite poetry? I agree that most of my textbooks are way overpriced and lacking useful information, but that's what attracts me to thinkers like Habermas. The point is that if we don't treat society, work, and school as a factory, but put more attention into daily actions then philosophers would be gladly out of a job because everyone is doing what they have spent millenia preaching about.
@cirosuperiore lol Yeah, I remember Between Facts and Norms was on the NY Times bestseller list for 18 months, it was such a page-turner. Seriously, how many books do you imagine big-name philosophers sell? Rawls was the only one to make serious cash from it.
@cirosuperiore Why do academic scene kids rape Nietzsche so bad? He was an outspoken sexist, racist, boderline sociopath with an obscurant streak worse than Derrida. Perspectivism was little more than derrivative, "Gott ist tot" is FAR from an original idea, and Ubermensch/Will to power is the must turgid, egocentric pile of drivel I've ever had to wade through. Habermas is'nt exactly perfect, but fuck at least he's actually rational.
@atreideslegend Read Nietzsche, particularly "The Gay Science" and "On the Geneaology of Morals," more carefully and return to your accusations of racism and sexism. Reading some key secondary materials should help you also to look under the surface of some of the material you might be deriding here. The book "Feminist Interpretations of Nietzsche" is also an excellent introduction to the radical idea of using not only Nietzsche's work on epistemology, but also on sex, for radical feminist aims.
@elliotswain Hmmmm maybe I should check those out, I've only read TSZ and BGE iirc and couldn't face any more, 'The Geneaology of Morals' sounds like it could perhaps be a fun alternative to the models in Totem and Taboo. Its interesting that you talk about methodology, I've read that much of the high post-modern criticism takes a lot from N in terms of reflexive enactment of argument (deconstruction being the obvious example), though I never really read that in N myself.
@atreideslegend ^Habermas actually makes that very observation in Modernism v Post-modernism. I think I found N's particular strain of reflexivity to be ineffective because his methodology struck me as unsystematic to begin with; too heavily laced with the pseudo-empiricism that was characteristic of pre-modernist discourse. The postmoderns (in Derrida, and more lucidly, Johnson) didn't have that problem so much, due to their criticisms being primarily semiotic and graphocentric.
@atreideslegend Also, if I could say one more thing, Nietzsche's work isn't obscurant, it's refractory and inversely systematic. Nietzsche's tendency to contradict himself is an intentional demonstration of a radical new form of philosophy in which the supposed atom of subjectivity, the author, shatters the presumptuous cathexis of discourse, and the pieces go off in myriad directions. To read Nietzsche, the most important thing to pay attention to is methodology.
@atreideslegend reading Nietz from a rationalist point of view is your first mistake. but i'm not here to explain FN. you have to do that on your own...
@atreideslegend Nietzsche is more of an obscurantist than Derrida? Lost me there. Other points you make are valid but it goes to show that a sexist racist (by our 21st cent. standards) can be a brilliant writer and thinker.
this guy is such a bullshit artist. he never wrote an original research paper. it's just one methodology book after another. books from other books. books about other books. what a bore.
and his conclusion end up to be just vapid liberal views that one heard for the past 250 years.
Much philosophy since Wittgenstein has moved to the turf of sociology.. so much so as to bankrupt the discipline of its own remit! Granted broader developments in pure philosophy gave rise to sociology in the first place, but credit where credits due. The major influences on Habermas' thought are Durkheim, Marx, Weber and Parsons.
I guess he's never heard of the nwo. It's funny people think he's idealistic. So reason, the legal system and linguistic tricks are the road to utopia...
Sure, metastased hairsplitting philosophical social constructs are gonna get us there.
We see here the insanity, the arrogance of "reason"...He just doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't. There are other dimensions to our humanity than "reason". "Reason"... "Communicative rationality." HAHAHA Buuuurp.
Well step one would be of course an immediate cessation of all plans and programs, agreements and laws and stop society's progress altogether in a highly mediatized effort of analyzing and defining our current situation and when the inevitable conclusions are taken, sanitize the roots of our society. Of course Habermas doesn't qualify for such an effort. He's too much a child of his time and of a certain mindframe with unavowed and occult metaphysical implications...
The conclusion must be: "corrupt at the roots, we need to fix EVERYTHING."
This must be a first constat, evidently with a detailed analysis of the reasons, and a massive trial in Neurenberg fashion for the people responsible.
Then, there's really too many fronts to work on to detail it here...
Actually, I don't really think there's much we can do because the process is too far advanced. I gather you are not aware of hidden stringpullers controlling events on the wordlstage?
@suddenlyitsobvious Well i wouldn't ask if i where. I'm just interested if you actually have something to base your criticism of Habermas. So please enlighten me about the hidden stringpullers, and pleas include some factual evidence to back these claims up.
-democracy is one of the most important themes of his research, apparently because he suffered from the regime of his childhood.
-he's interested in LEGAL philosophy and international LAW. (apparently he's never heard the extent to which a society is optimal and just is inversely proportional with the quantity of laws)
I mean you can't use grand concepts like democracy and law without looking at reality. I'm sure if you're somewhat familiar with "international relations" you'll know that you won't find even one conflict zone were the conflict wasn't engineered by either the CIA, Wall Street or some other undemocratic force.
Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba etc...the list goes on and on.
Ignoring this constant stringpulling, bringing "international law" to our attention becomes a tragic farce.
@suddenlyitsobvious Actually he does. His theory of communicativ action is made in the tradition of the critical theory of Ardono and Horkheimer. And as such it's central aim is to criticise society by comparing how it should be and how it realy is. And then to analyse the mechanisms that are preventing society from becoming what it is supposed to be. Is THAT any good?
I'm sure you'll see that people like this desensitize us to the existence of a serious problem in all world affairs, and pointing to international law, democracy and legal philosophy and pompous concepts like communicative rationality, while completely ignoring how 9/11, nazism, bolshevism etc were created, indicates he's either a sad old clown or a deceptive agent.
@jimbopumbapigsticks but the speech is slurred from a cleft palate. That sucks. The guy 's a professor, speaking for a living and his work is on clear communication (bad joke)
We may not like his idealizm (of curse there is idealism in his theory it is normative for Gods Sake) but aren't human rights idealist? His theory lets us e. g. conceive of the tension between normative ideals of human rights and a particular democratic rule.
What do you mean by "Truth"? If you think that Habermas subscribes to the view that Truth has anything to do with correspondance then you couldn't be further formt the truth (lol). He speaks about communicatively established truth, and communicative rationality which are something totally different.
That said, Habermas is NOT brilliant. I stand by my belief that he's an idealist; that he believes that his forms of democratic communication are not only a teleological ideal but a necessary event that communication will bring about.
That is, he seems to think that utterly democratic communication will create "Truth" or, at least, "Right."
Take a few hours on 4Chan . . . .
Do you still believe in Habermas?
No offense to the man, but he's a Pollyanna. Let's try to think about reality.
Those who say Habermas is a "brilliant philosopher" are no less stupid than those people clamoring, "I can't understand what this old coot is saying." The reality is somewhere in-between.
Frankly, if you need a crib sheet to translate or to understand his "deliberative democracy," or moreover, "communicative rationality," you don't need to be making comment.
what makes everyone think that the influence on the german media vanished after the re-education was officially over? i can see (i'm german) that we are all totally brainwashed. we do not live in a real democracy here.
his particular phonetical accent, his accentuation of english words in a german manner and the fact that i'm not a native english speaker makes it difficult for me to apreciate this interview. I'm however reading some works about education that reffer to his work and I find Habermas to be very interesting, being inclined to educational psychology I might educate myself towards his school of thought
Yo peeps! Me mega dumbz n me duno understand the "philosophy" but me super understand 1 thang -- why he look wierd? neway i prefer horkheimy and adorny A+
Apparently Habermas has (had) cleft palate, so don't blame him. And apparently that's why he doesn't enjoy appearing on television cameras. From my point of view he speaks very good and understandable English, even though his accent is German and there's some minor distortion you can hear in his pronunciation.
Du hast nicht verstanden, was er meint mit "Verfassungspatriotismus". Hegel war auch eine Idealist, wieso machst Du Habermas solche Vorwurf. Der ist auf keinen Fall Idealist...
@RunningFromthe80s Who is the ignoramus then? If you had half a brain, and that part was half educated, you might then be in a position to make an intelligent comment. Until then, don't embarrass yourself by making stupid comments about things you have no idea about. Anyone who knows what Habermas is talking about appreciates his work.
First of all I was referring to a comment by another user named "GreatHistorian1" who named Habermas a "NEO MARXIST wizard and idiot". So I was defending, not offending Habermas.
Second, I´m a student of sociology in Munich. Thats where Habermas himself was teaching. So I think I am pretty good informed about Habermas AND I am a pretty big "fan" of him.
So pls look out for the context of comments BEFORE you give bad feedback. thank you
Habermas lümmelt in einem Corbusier - Nazi-Verdacht - Sessel und erklärt die Welt für Sozialdemokratisch. Herrlich. Allein sein differenziertes Sprachgefühl, seine Pointensetzung, macht Lust auf mehr, macht Lust auf Nietzsche und Heidegger! Habermas profiliert sich still und leise als Westerwelle der Soziologie (als Philosoph ernst genommen wird er ja schon lange nicht mehr )-
Beginning to read him properly for the first time, I am in love with his prose and the sensibleness inherent in his critiques of so-called subject-centred reason. My problem is in seeing 'communicative action' as anything more than an optimistic 'yes we can!' against post-structuralist nihilism. The tweaking of Weber's action theory is fine, but that related primarily to practical sociological method! Is 'communicative action' a "thing", or just our new euphemism for the enlightenment spirit?
Uno de los grandes pensadores contemporáneos. En estos tiempos cuando la ideología neoliberal pretende ser la verdad absoluta y además pretende ser la culminación de la historia, Habermas señala que las tareas de la Ilustración están incompletas. Aún es posible imaginar y adherirse a utopías que se proponen el avance racional y la liberación del género humano.
Un placer escuchar a un pensador de la talla de Jurgen Habermas.
Estou de acordo com tua intervencao. Só gostaria de explicar-lhe o conceito de Esclarecimento, que nós, em portugues e espanhol chamamos de "ilustracao" ou "iluminismo". Em alemao "Aufklärung" significa Esclarecimento, também no sentido trivial de esclarecer qualquer problema ou circunstancia. "Klären" é clarear, "Aufklären" entao Esclarecer. Tornar algo claro, levar à luz. Iluminismo, ilustracao é para os alemaes "Esclarecimento". Já em Kant era assim. Um abraco.
Pobre pendejo. No importa que escriba en hoch-deuch e incluso sea co-autor con Ratzinger. Es un pobre pendejo leporino por eso no se le entiende nada cuando habla, en este caso, inglés. Habermas, ya lo dijo Sloterdijk, un sacerdote. ¡Que bueno que nadie en Frankfurt lo quería!
Qué estúpido!, el tipo ha propuesto uno de los proyectos más logrados sobre la interacción equitativa y racional entre los hombres y vos te fijás si tiene el labio roto o si en Frankfurt lo querían o no, como si no fuera el más grande de los sucesores de la escuela.
Concuerdo con "esteesvalido". Lo siento pero es asi. Tu mensaje no se compagina junto a la filosofia en este particular caso, en nada. Porque denigras asi? K te hizo Habermas?
Myself, and many other democracy activist, take sustenance from Dr. Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy. While critics have thoughtfully pointed out how idealistic it is assume that people meet as equals to rational agree upon decisions; his theories of deliberative democracy and communicative action nonetheless provides a goal to aspire to and a blueprint from which to judge the legitimacy of decisions.
Id love it if halfway through this video, the interviewer stopped the interview and said,
"Listen mate. I dont know whether you realise, but this is actually gong out on the TELLY yeah? So enough of the funny voices. It was funny for the first five minutes but this is for a serious show"
Urgent pragmatic backdrop newsflash: video.google The Money Masters, The Brotherhood of Darkness, JT Gatto State Education, Expelled, Global Warming or Global Governance, The Fluoride Deception, The Truth About Vaccines, The Science and Politics of Cancer, The Marijuana Conspiracy, Global Nuclear Coverup, Agenda21, Georgia Guidestones ...
Well, that's a great commentary! You should learn how to argue with communicative reason. Some Habermas reading would be good for you. Maybe you will stop thinking and writing like a moron.
We have very different interpretations of Habermas if you reduce his thought to a 'defense of liberal democracy'. His theory of communicative action, though entailing toleration of pluraties, strives toward a new humanity, the limit of which is the sanctity of human rights. For me it is Foucault's (who is by FAR the most pretentious and by extention elitist of the two) refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a transhistorical universal ideal of humanity which more props up the status quo.
How does Foucault's refusal to acknowledge a transhistorical universal ideal of humanity reinforce the status quo? It refuses the transcendental and fully acknowledges that truth and knowledge are institutional artifacts, so to speak. This undermines the authority of, and exposes the status quo to me. Not attacking you, just curious.
if truth and knowledge are always just institutional artefacts, what about the truth of human rights, don't they apply across the board in some shape or form? And Foucault cannot refuse a transhistorical universal ideal of humanity for by reducing all human differences to arbitrariness and violence he himself sinks back into the very metaphysical assumptions forsworn: that is, that its own transcendental will-to-power that posits ineradicable negativity as the only possible commonality
the Nietzscheans actually turn out to be promoting nothing more than an anti-humanist mythos. They want to present a mere objective genealogy, a narration of differences, but also to INTERPRET these roles historically through idolizing the play of assertive difference. There is nothing in Foucault that can distinghuish legitimate competition from illegitimate terror. Nihilism's practical expression must be fascism. Shouldn't we try to rehabilitate a new humanism?
I think that the point you make is strong, However, I do think it is important to recognize the historical without finding it necessary to emphasize or outline a universal or residual truth about human nature or any topic for that matter, which is what must be attempted if one speaks of a new humanism. Because the very language we use is tied up in the institutions we inhabit, it is nigh impossible to escape the cave so to speak, in order to ever have the utilities necessary for such a thing.
I dont have a problem with the project from a material(ist) standpoint, in which we stand shoulder to shoulder, but I think that transforming power structures through the behavioral and revealing their fabrications through the intellectual is an important task if we ever want to come closer to any theoretical permanency.
nihilism is something to reflect the will-to-power off of. nihilism and will-to-power are incompatible in the sense that trancendentality does exists for Nietzche. It is not a structural trancendentality.
Nihilism basically takes into account the sterility of the universe except for humanity. humanity draws upon nature for them to know. this leads to societys that are driven on a mixture of hype thats connected to substance. for me it is a reconstruction in different fashions. the will-to-power could mean to do your best in a relationship of love. when you break out of the spell, the only thing you need is a mere reversal and say that love is not worth it.
Although there are commands against him[J.Habermas], I do say hisworks helped me understand the public sphere and deliberative democracy in a really new perspective. This video is too short to reveal his depths, but the first question(second topic of this interview) has helped me to understand his main concerns. Thanks sharing! :)
Why has the commentary option for most of the Heidegger videos been deactivated? I emailed one of the people who posted a video, and he said, "because too many stupid people were posting commentary." The commentary wasn't stupid at all, especially by internet standards. And I translated a good part of a video, only to see it swept away by deactivation. I have to wonder if there is a policy at work? Google doesn't reveal their policies.
A largely successful programme, it omitted the power of the non-rational. In communication & politics, much of what happens depends upon visual rhetoric & non-rational forms of meaning. Habermas's programme perpetuates hegemony.
What much recent debate on political theory has been missing is the fact that we continue to discuss political structures as if technology were standing still. It is in fact evolving massively and must surely impact the way we think about political processes, since technology is an immense force for change, democratization and the way we engage politics.
Habermas is the ultimate herd animal. He swallowed post-war atrocity propaganda which compelled him to join an evil Marxist movement dedicated to the destruction of his people. I will throw a block party the day this piece of shit drops dead!
Democracy? Did we ever have it. Democracy, even in its real form among the ancient Greeks was always something on the edge of the abyss. And when taken as that, ancient democracies and republics were always still to some degree elitist...slaves, women and foreigners could not vote. Overpopulated areas are incapable of having real democracy.
great video thanks
alexasmithy 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
19ls90 2 weeks ago
Why are control phreaks always so hawt?
brokennarcissist 2 months ago
wixer dieser scheiss habermas
the564530 2 months ago
and he is talking about??? communicative structures to be important? ... Foucault was about power and he was a homsxual who had himself whooped in new orleans gay bars, omg, philosophers are crazy, they just cant see it?!
soldierofvanity 4 months ago
Ugggh cleft-lip problems can be easily solved with simple surgery nowadays!
thebloads 4 months ago
@thebloads just have someone subtitle this for all convenience man, i mean hell, just needs an extra girl to scoop some drool off his face when he is eating, other then that subtitles will solve this problem. :D
soldierofvanity 4 months ago
WHAT DOES HE SAY IN 4:09 ??
iMac0906 7 months ago
@iMac0906 He says, "I had the opportunity to grow up in post-war Germany within a generation of rather productive sociologists and philosophers. Then you see that I couldn't have, probably, written any book without being part of a generational discourse in my country, so that I can accept such a prize only if I think that it is also dedicated to a whole academic cohort and context, without which I wouldn't have become so well read."
GrammarMoses 5 months ago
Well, I thought it was going to be A LOT EASIER to listening to him than reading him... WRONG !
TheGatoChile 7 months ago 16
@TheGatoChile.... cool i wont bother then u saved me time :)
aatishoo 1 week ago
die Freunde haben alles verblendet, entkernt, verfremdet, ausgehöhlt.
Alles ausgezuzelt und ins dialektische Meer der "Aufklärung" gespuckt.
Es wird hier aussehen wie nach dem 30jährigen Krieg, und alles fing
mit diesen mephistophelischen Gehirnwäschern an.
tritop 7 months ago
0:11 Zomiemas
tel2404 8 months ago
the problem with modern intellectuals like Habermas is that they have become businessmen. they only care about selling their vapid, insipid books that the gullible undergraduate students buys by the truck load thinking he'll find something deep in it.
he'll be greatly disappointed.
cirosuperiore 8 months ago
@cirosuperiore -- Did you listen to what he said? And what do you expect philosophers to do, recite poetry? I agree that most of my textbooks are way overpriced and lacking useful information, but that's what attracts me to thinkers like Habermas. The point is that if we don't treat society, work, and school as a factory, but put more attention into daily actions then philosophers would be gladly out of a job because everyone is doing what they have spent millenia preaching about.
theseanze 7 months ago
@cirosuperiore lol Yeah, I remember Between Facts and Norms was on the NY Times bestseller list for 18 months, it was such a page-turner. Seriously, how many books do you imagine big-name philosophers sell? Rawls was the only one to make serious cash from it.
jimbopumbapigsticks 7 months ago
@jimbopumbapigsticks John Rawls, is also a great disappointment, just repeating what JS Mill said a century ago, with a little marxism thrown in.
but nothing is more ridiculous than habermas power-free communication: making Nietzsche turn in his grave
cirosuperiore 7 months ago
@cirosuperiore Why do academic scene kids rape Nietzsche so bad? He was an outspoken sexist, racist, boderline sociopath with an obscurant streak worse than Derrida. Perspectivism was little more than derrivative, "Gott ist tot" is FAR from an original idea, and Ubermensch/Will to power is the must turgid, egocentric pile of drivel I've ever had to wade through. Habermas is'nt exactly perfect, but fuck at least he's actually rational.
atreideslegend 6 months ago
@atreideslegend Read Nietzsche, particularly "The Gay Science" and "On the Geneaology of Morals," more carefully and return to your accusations of racism and sexism. Reading some key secondary materials should help you also to look under the surface of some of the material you might be deriding here. The book "Feminist Interpretations of Nietzsche" is also an excellent introduction to the radical idea of using not only Nietzsche's work on epistemology, but also on sex, for radical feminist aims.
elliotswain 6 months ago
@elliotswain Hmmmm maybe I should check those out, I've only read TSZ and BGE iirc and couldn't face any more, 'The Geneaology of Morals' sounds like it could perhaps be a fun alternative to the models in Totem and Taboo. Its interesting that you talk about methodology, I've read that much of the high post-modern criticism takes a lot from N in terms of reflexive enactment of argument (deconstruction being the obvious example), though I never really read that in N myself.
atreideslegend 6 months ago
@atreideslegend ^Habermas actually makes that very observation in Modernism v Post-modernism. I think I found N's particular strain of reflexivity to be ineffective because his methodology struck me as unsystematic to begin with; too heavily laced with the pseudo-empiricism that was characteristic of pre-modernist discourse. The postmoderns (in Derrida, and more lucidly, Johnson) didn't have that problem so much, due to their criticisms being primarily semiotic and graphocentric.
atreideslegend 6 months ago
@atreideslegend Also, if I could say one more thing, Nietzsche's work isn't obscurant, it's refractory and inversely systematic. Nietzsche's tendency to contradict himself is an intentional demonstration of a radical new form of philosophy in which the supposed atom of subjectivity, the author, shatters the presumptuous cathexis of discourse, and the pieces go off in myriad directions. To read Nietzsche, the most important thing to pay attention to is methodology.
elliotswain 6 months ago
@atreideslegend reading Nietz from a rationalist point of view is your first mistake. but i'm not here to explain FN. you have to do that on your own...
cirosuperiore 6 months ago
@cirosuperiore Or make any kind of argument apparently.
Oh and btw 'rational' /= 'rationalist', try the dictionary.
atreideslegend 6 months ago
@atreideslegend Nietzsche is more of an obscurantist than Derrida? Lost me there. Other points you make are valid but it goes to show that a sexist racist (by our 21st cent. standards) can be a brilliant writer and thinker.
S2Cents 4 months ago
this guy is such a bullshit artist. he never wrote an original research paper. it's just one methodology book after another. books from other books. books about other books. what a bore.
and his conclusion end up to be just vapid liberal views that one heard for the past 250 years.
cirosuperiore 8 months ago
sorry.....what?
DaisyGeggus 8 months ago
East-West dichotomy got over 150,000 views combined already.
WeToldYouSo1 9 months ago
Philosophy is overrated.
WeToldYouSo1 9 months ago
Habermas should at least have the decency to credit Christopher Lasch.
stephenglovervidz 9 months ago
what was the date of this interview?
PoeticMuna 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out these Channels, they are the BEST on youtube.
"A Voice For Men"
"Pinegrove33"
"ManWomanMyth"
"JohnTheOther"
"christy0Misty"
"6oodfella"
"Jessica22481"
Join the rapidly growing Mens Rights Movement!
Razlo5000 10 months ago
in germany we call him: "de Schwaetzer"...
Patriol666 10 months ago
@Patriol666 what does "de Schwaetzer" means?
bla2303 10 months ago
@bla2303
It is "der" not "de".
der = the
Schwätzer = chatterbox
WasGibtsLeute 9 months ago
I kant believe this guy. What a kant.
pleonexo 10 months ago 15
I love the accent of the interviewer. I think it should have subtitles also.
sportsportsport 1 year ago
Much philosophy since Wittgenstein has moved to the turf of sociology.. so much so as to bankrupt the discipline of its own remit! Granted broader developments in pure philosophy gave rise to sociology in the first place, but credit where credits due. The major influences on Habermas' thought are Durkheim, Marx, Weber and Parsons.
tomsega 1 year ago
@tomsega You forgot Schmitt, even though he inverted what he said about the public sphere.
jimbopumbapigsticks 7 months ago
i think it would be proper to put subtitles.
sundries13 1 year ago
i think it would be proper to put subtitles.
sundries13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
julius70five 1 year ago
I guess he's never heard of the nwo. It's funny people think he's idealistic. So reason, the legal system and linguistic tricks are the road to utopia...
Sure, metastased hairsplitting philosophical social constructs are gonna get us there.
We see here the insanity, the arrogance of "reason"...He just doesn't get it or pretends he doesn't. There are other dimensions to our humanity than "reason". "Reason"... "Communicative rationality." HAHAHA Buuuurp.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious You certantly sound like you have it al worked out. Please enlighten us how to improve on our society.
BadMartini 1 year ago
@BadMartini
Well step one would be of course an immediate cessation of all plans and programs, agreements and laws and stop society's progress altogether in a highly mediatized effort of analyzing and defining our current situation and when the inevitable conclusions are taken, sanitize the roots of our society. Of course Habermas doesn't qualify for such an effort. He's too much a child of his time and of a certain mindframe with unavowed and occult metaphysical implications...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious And the conclusion would be?
BadMartini 1 year ago
@BadMartini
The conclusion must be: "corrupt at the roots, we need to fix EVERYTHING."
This must be a first constat, evidently with a detailed analysis of the reasons, and a massive trial in Neurenberg fashion for the people responsible.
Then, there's really too many fronts to work on to detail it here...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Then give me an overview, please. I mean you can hardly stop the world because you have a hunch something is wrong.
BadMartini 1 year ago
@BadMartini
Actually, I don't really think there's much we can do because the process is too far advanced. I gather you are not aware of hidden stringpullers controlling events on the wordlstage?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Well i wouldn't ask if i where. I'm just interested if you actually have something to base your criticism of Habermas. So please enlighten me about the hidden stringpullers, and pleas include some factual evidence to back these claims up.
BadMartini 1 year ago
@BadMartini
In this video what does JH really say?
-society must be critical of its own creations
-democracy is one of the most important themes of his research, apparently because he suffered from the regime of his childhood.
-he's interested in LEGAL philosophy and international LAW. (apparently he's never heard the extent to which a society is optimal and just is inversely proportional with the quantity of laws)
-communicative rationality...
I can't see any useful thought here...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@BadMartini
I mean you can't use grand concepts like democracy and law without looking at reality. I'm sure if you're somewhat familiar with "international relations" you'll know that you won't find even one conflict zone were the conflict wasn't engineered by either the CIA, Wall Street or some other undemocratic force.
Iran, Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba etc...the list goes on and on.
Ignoring this constant stringpulling, bringing "international law" to our attention becomes a tragic farce.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@BadMartini
What good will this idol of legalism do for the masses except enslave them under "the rule of law"?
Why doesn't JH explain to us why 1 billion people are starving and such things? THAT would be useful...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Actually he does. His theory of communicativ action is made in the tradition of the critical theory of Ardono and Horkheimer. And as such it's central aim is to criticise society by comparing how it should be and how it realy is. And then to analyse the mechanisms that are preventing society from becoming what it is supposed to be. Is THAT any good?
BadMartini 1 year ago
Comment removed
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@BadMartini
I'm sure you'll see that people like this desensitize us to the existence of a serious problem in all world affairs, and pointing to international law, democracy and legal philosophy and pompous concepts like communicative rationality, while completely ignoring how 9/11, nazism, bolshevism etc were created, indicates he's either a sad old clown or a deceptive agent.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
Comment removed
BadMartini 1 year ago
@BadMartini
I hope you are not gonna bring stuff up like Chomsky's anarcho syndicalism or whatever he calls it.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
Did he surfer a stroke or something? (not intended to be offensive, just curious..)
S2Cents 1 year ago
@S2Cents Nah, he's got a cleft palate.
jimbopumbapigsticks 1 year ago
@jimbopumbapigsticks but the speech is slurred from a cleft palate. That sucks. The guy 's a professor, speaking for a living and his work is on clear communication (bad joke)
S2Cents 1 year ago
@S2Cents Yeah, there's a joke about pragmatism, Rorty and ironism in there somewhere.
jimbopumbapigsticks 1 year ago
We may not like his idealizm (of curse there is idealism in his theory it is normative for Gods Sake) but aren't human rights idealist? His theory lets us e. g. conceive of the tension between normative ideals of human rights and a particular democratic rule.
tjaryma 1 year ago
What do you mean by "Truth"? If you think that Habermas subscribes to the view that Truth has anything to do with correspondance then you couldn't be further formt the truth (lol). He speaks about communicatively established truth, and communicative rationality which are something totally different.
tjaryma 1 year ago
DAMN
Armando7654 1 year ago
That said, Habermas is NOT brilliant. I stand by my belief that he's an idealist; that he believes that his forms of democratic communication are not only a teleological ideal but a necessary event that communication will bring about.
That is, he seems to think that utterly democratic communication will create "Truth" or, at least, "Right."
Take a few hours on 4Chan . . . .
Do you still believe in Habermas?
No offense to the man, but he's a Pollyanna. Let's try to think about reality.
ETW206 1 year ago
Those who say Habermas is a "brilliant philosopher" are no less stupid than those people clamoring, "I can't understand what this old coot is saying." The reality is somewhere in-between.
Frankly, if you need a crib sheet to translate or to understand his "deliberative democracy," or moreover, "communicative rationality," you don't need to be making comment.
ETW206 1 year ago
what makes everyone think that the influence on the german media vanished after the re-education was officially over? i can see (i'm german) that we are all totally brainwashed. we do not live in a real democracy here.
creandra 1 year ago
What's wrong with him?
benvtucker15 1 year ago
@benvtucker15 Alzheimer's, I suppose.
larbaud 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
seekfears 1 year ago
his particular phonetical accent, his accentuation of english words in a german manner and the fact that i'm not a native english speaker makes it difficult for me to apreciate this interview. I'm however reading some works about education that reffer to his work and I find Habermas to be very interesting, being inclined to educational psychology I might educate myself towards his school of thought
KingFernandoBono 1 year ago
@KingFernandoBono I would be happy to transcribe it for you, if it helps.
saqmatit 1 year ago
Yo peeps! Me mega dumbz n me duno understand the "philosophy" but me super understand 1 thang -- why he look wierd? neway i prefer horkheimy and adorny A+
electroscheme 1 year ago
am i the only one who is missing subtitles?
sjmeerkees 1 year ago
Legend
shakeyourdimsims 1 year ago 6
Is Habermas a cool mofo?
brajtnerinjo 1 year ago 32
@brajtnerinjo jaaaaaa
soluna37 1 year ago
english pronounciation --> epic fail
wizardn1 1 year ago
@wizardn1
Apparently Habermas has (had) cleft palate, so don't blame him. And apparently that's why he doesn't enjoy appearing on television cameras. From my point of view he speaks very good and understandable English, even though his accent is German and there's some minor distortion you can hear in his pronunciation.
jahejahe 1 year ago 5
¿Hegel el mejor filósofo?... según quién.
Nietzschopenhauer 1 year ago
dat i bely mize... aso ice alk
bizarrevision 1 year ago
why is his nose shapeshifing?
Armando7654 1 year ago
@Armando7654
He used to be a boxer during his years as an undergrad student.
dbohemian1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I love Habermas and all but jesus christ, the way he talks sounds like a fucking retard. I dont understand any of it.
Thusyanthan 1 year ago
Wertvolle Aufnahme
tschuasters 1 year ago
Du hast nicht verstanden, was er meint mit "Verfassungspatriotismus". Hegel war auch eine Idealist, wieso machst Du Habermas solche Vorwurf. Der ist auf keinen Fall Idealist...
guariba63 1 year ago
i'm with Timurito1. I cant understand a fucking word he says. Could do with some subtitles.
psycropticunt 2 years ago
I am sorry to say but I do not undersdand what he is saying in any language he speaks;/
Timurito1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEO MARXIST wizard and idiot ! Will we never get rid of Soviet Union's poison?
GreatHistorian1 2 years ago
haha and you name yourself "GreatHistorian"?
You numb ignorant
RunningFromthe80s 2 years ago 4
@RunningFromthe80s Who is the ignoramus then? If you had half a brain, and that part was half educated, you might then be in a position to make an intelligent comment. Until then, don't embarrass yourself by making stupid comments about things you have no idea about. Anyone who knows what Habermas is talking about appreciates his work.
ozdonat31 2 years ago
First of all I was referring to a comment by another user named "GreatHistorian1" who named Habermas a "NEO MARXIST wizard and idiot". So I was defending, not offending Habermas.
Second, I´m a student of sociology in Munich. Thats where Habermas himself was teaching. So I think I am pretty good informed about Habermas AND I am a pretty big "fan" of him.
So pls look out for the context of comments BEFORE you give bad feedback. thank you
RunningFromthe80s 2 years ago
@ozdonat31 Hahahaah what school did you go to? Bloody idiot!!!!
Thusyanthan 1 year ago
kopfsprung 2 years ago
das ist schon ein bisschen unfair
mentalistor 2 years ago
mein gott, in welcher welt lebst du denn?
GroggyLobster 2 years ago
@GroggyLobster
Ich lebe in einer Welt, in welcher Habermas von einem
Le Corbusier Sessel aus die Wedlt Sozialdemokratisiert.
Schnieke!
kopfsprung
kopfsprung 1 year ago
Beginning to read him properly for the first time, I am in love with his prose and the sensibleness inherent in his critiques of so-called subject-centred reason. My problem is in seeing 'communicative action' as anything more than an optimistic 'yes we can!' against post-structuralist nihilism. The tweaking of Weber's action theory is fine, but that related primarily to practical sociological method! Is 'communicative action' a "thing", or just our new euphemism for the enlightenment spirit?
tomsega 2 years ago
"speech community" as the key to correct interpretation.. i like his theory
pilosopoarch 2 years ago
when I try to play it, it's only two seconds.. weird.
jerona 2 years ago
seria genial si alguien pudiera subtitularlo al español u otros idiomas, para poder opinar.
Gracias
XxLadyOscar22xX 2 years ago
Labermas.
Bachtin08 2 years ago
bei allem respekt vor habermas....aber LOL @ labermas...made my day ^^
th3orist 2 years ago
Bulbar paralysis?
snowballrambo 2 years ago
Maybe...
perricida 2 years ago
that is nonsense renjie, he is a brilliant philosopher. OMG, someone is wrong on the internet
stubility 2 years ago 21
@stubility ?
RainaPat 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this guy is ridiculous and making a fool of himself lol
renjie253 2 years ago
I wish I wasn't an American. His accent is so hard for me to understand. Oh well, anyway, great philosopher. He's one of my favorites.
agnosticasshole 2 years ago 3
He is the best philosopher alive.
simonbernes 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sigh.... so German....
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
Modernist to a fault, elightenment blackmail, ideal speach circumstances..... German, all too German.
brokennarcissist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His face is crooked. He reminds me of Gonzo, the muppet.
lxmoya11 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He is Jurgen from Frets on Fire
Migabi17 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
whats up with his face
rob177467 2 years ago
I think he looks pretty cool, myself.
Israe5l 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
haha I know, why is his face like that???
GeorgSimmel88 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
quak quak quak!
Thronsohn 2 years ago
Uno de los grandes pensadores contemporáneos. En estos tiempos cuando la ideología neoliberal pretende ser la verdad absoluta y además pretende ser la culminación de la historia, Habermas señala que las tareas de la Ilustración están incompletas. Aún es posible imaginar y adherirse a utopías que se proponen el avance racional y la liberación del género humano.
Un placer escuchar a un pensador de la talla de Jurgen Habermas.
fabriciodeldongo 2 years ago 3
Estou de acordo com tua intervencao. Só gostaria de explicar-lhe o conceito de Esclarecimento, que nós, em portugues e espanhol chamamos de "ilustracao" ou "iluminismo". Em alemao "Aufklärung" significa Esclarecimento, também no sentido trivial de esclarecer qualquer problema ou circunstancia. "Klären" é clarear, "Aufklären" entao Esclarecer. Tornar algo claro, levar à luz. Iluminismo, ilustracao é para os alemaes "Esclarecimento". Já em Kant era assim. Um abraco.
guariba63 1 year ago
Pobre pendejo. No importa que escriba en hoch-deuch e incluso sea co-autor con Ratzinger. Es un pobre pendejo leporino por eso no se le entiende nada cuando habla, en este caso, inglés. Habermas, ya lo dijo Sloterdijk, un sacerdote. ¡Que bueno que nadie en Frankfurt lo quería!
MezcalFaceDonut 2 years ago
Qué estúpido!, el tipo ha propuesto uno de los proyectos más logrados sobre la interacción equitativa y racional entre los hombres y vos te fijás si tiene el labio roto o si en Frankfurt lo querían o no, como si no fuera el más grande de los sucesores de la escuela.
esteesvalido 2 years ago
Concuerdo con "esteesvalido". Lo siento pero es asi. Tu mensaje no se compagina junto a la filosofia en este particular caso, en nada. Porque denigras asi? K te hizo Habermas?
vbrandenstein 2 years ago
no creo que tenga labio leporino.
a los que lo defienden, lo unico que les quiero decir que mierntras no caiga el capitalismo no va a haber una interaccion equitativa y racional.
EL UNICO QUE TIENE RAZON ES MARX Y SUS SEGUIDORES.
oti87 2 years ago
El pobre pendejo eres tu ¿Sloterdijk? Cambiate el pañal y ponte a leer a Honneth.
renlaz 2 years ago
Eu compreendo em ingles e tambem auf Deutsch. Talvez teu ingles nao seja tao bom como tu pensas.
guariba63 1 year ago
his nose is big
b4rn35y 2 years ago
Is this guy an atheist?
Raffzeee 2 years ago
Yes he is ( have a look at wikipedia. he is listed in the category " atheist philosophers" and " german atheists" ) hope that helps :-)
zaddiksaba 2 years ago 2
habermas, he just ruins my life...arghh i hate him and his stupid theorys , he really know how to make a studenslife suck.. jesus christ.
inamorato86 2 years ago
Myself, and many other democracy activist, take sustenance from Dr. Habermas' theory of deliberative democracy. While critics have thoughtfully pointed out how idealistic it is assume that people meet as equals to rational agree upon decisions; his theories of deliberative democracy and communicative action nonetheless provides a goal to aspire to and a blueprint from which to judge the legitimacy of decisions.
epsjrs 2 years ago
Can you please translate this for me?
Fruitgwarf 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Id love it if halfway through this video, the interviewer stopped the interview and said,
"Listen mate. I dont know whether you realise, but this is actually gong out on the TELLY yeah? So enough of the funny voices. It was funny for the first five minutes but this is for a serious show"
Pieboy222 3 years ago
KUTAS!
marddz 3 years ago
Urgent pragmatic backdrop newsflash: video.google The Money Masters, The Brotherhood of Darkness, JT Gatto State Education, Expelled, Global Warming or Global Governance, The Fluoride Deception, The Truth About Vaccines, The Science and Politics of Cancer, The Marijuana Conspiracy, Global Nuclear Coverup, Agenda21, Georgia Guidestones ...
stupidtreehugger 3 years ago
IK vind Habermas een inhoudloze man met veel geneuzel over niks!
POSNER is the king!
jekko12 3 years ago
I wished, I could also speak through my nose! :-)
frankonero4 3 years ago
Hat der gute Herr ein Sprachfehler?
frankonero4 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Drop dead Habermas you self-loathing piece of shit.
AnalgesicBalm 3 years ago
Well, that's a great commentary! You should learn how to argue with communicative reason. Some Habermas reading would be good for you. Maybe you will stop thinking and writing like a moron.
fxmr79 3 years ago
We have very different interpretations of Habermas if you reduce his thought to a 'defense of liberal democracy'. His theory of communicative action, though entailing toleration of pluraties, strives toward a new humanity, the limit of which is the sanctity of human rights. For me it is Foucault's (who is by FAR the most pretentious and by extention elitist of the two) refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a transhistorical universal ideal of humanity which more props up the status quo.
MichaelFrances 3 years ago
How does Foucault's refusal to acknowledge a transhistorical universal ideal of humanity reinforce the status quo? It refuses the transcendental and fully acknowledges that truth and knowledge are institutional artifacts, so to speak. This undermines the authority of, and exposes the status quo to me. Not attacking you, just curious.
bknight23 2 years ago
if truth and knowledge are always just institutional artefacts, what about the truth of human rights, don't they apply across the board in some shape or form? And Foucault cannot refuse a transhistorical universal ideal of humanity for by reducing all human differences to arbitrariness and violence he himself sinks back into the very metaphysical assumptions forsworn: that is, that its own transcendental will-to-power that posits ineradicable negativity as the only possible commonality
MichaelFrances 2 years ago
the Nietzscheans actually turn out to be promoting nothing more than an anti-humanist mythos. They want to present a mere objective genealogy, a narration of differences, but also to INTERPRET these roles historically through idolizing the play of assertive difference. There is nothing in Foucault that can distinghuish legitimate competition from illegitimate terror. Nihilism's practical expression must be fascism. Shouldn't we try to rehabilitate a new humanism?
MichaelFrances 2 years ago
I think that the point you make is strong, However, I do think it is important to recognize the historical without finding it necessary to emphasize or outline a universal or residual truth about human nature or any topic for that matter, which is what must be attempted if one speaks of a new humanism. Because the very language we use is tied up in the institutions we inhabit, it is nigh impossible to escape the cave so to speak, in order to ever have the utilities necessary for such a thing.
bknight23 2 years ago
I dont have a problem with the project from a material(ist) standpoint, in which we stand shoulder to shoulder, but I think that transforming power structures through the behavioral and revealing their fabrications through the intellectual is an important task if we ever want to come closer to any theoretical permanency.
bknight23 2 years ago
nihilism is something to reflect the will-to-power off of. nihilism and will-to-power are incompatible in the sense that trancendentality does exists for Nietzche. It is not a structural trancendentality.
gen6k 2 years ago
Nihilism basically takes into account the sterility of the universe except for humanity. humanity draws upon nature for them to know. this leads to societys that are driven on a mixture of hype thats connected to substance. for me it is a reconstruction in different fashions. the will-to-power could mean to do your best in a relationship of love. when you break out of the spell, the only thing you need is a mere reversal and say that love is not worth it.
gen6k 2 years ago
Great stuff, thanks for sharing this! Now I find him difficult to understand in more than one way. This man is a genious.
nakedhand 3 years ago
Piece of shit.
LawrenceErnie 3 years ago
Alguién puede traducir al español, ¿por favor?
Gracias.
olormaderoso 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ugly men bear ugly thought ;-)
kluetenkloeter 3 years ago
idiots, write stupid comments ;)
ulz007 3 years ago
Don't be so hard on yourself, ulz007 ;-)
kluetenkloeter 3 years ago
What is the ugliest part of your body? Some say your nose, some say your toes, I think it's your mind!
To Kluetenkloeter xxx
soundoflight 3 years ago 2
I love you too.
kluetenkloeter 3 years ago
Gasp... are you suggesting that Habermas may be personal investment in denying aesthetic value that is reflected in his philosophical project?
I'm inclined to agree.
brokennarcissist 3 years ago
un groso jorgito! me complicas el fin de año con tu teoria de accion comunicativa pero todo bien jaja
elsalvajezimmermann 3 years ago
heh, forgot my credits to the 'supplier'。 ：）
哈哈，忘了該貢獻給提供者的點數！
CoseLee 3 years ago
Although there are commands against him[J.Habermas], I do say hisworks helped me understand the public sphere and deliberative democracy in a really new perspective. This video is too short to reveal his depths, but the first question(second topic of this interview) has helped me to understand his main concerns. Thanks sharing! :)
對於民主以及審議民主的關懷，這點很不錯！ ：）
Danke !
CoseLee 3 years ago
Hmmm.... never thought'd I'd find a Habermas video. But this is good, since I'm studying him this sem at the uni.
charliec81 3 years ago
Oh wow great mouth skills !
anamkhai 3 years ago
sorry to break this to you, America is not a democratic society.
delsol00000 3 years ago 4
Why has the commentary option for most of the Heidegger videos been deactivated? I emailed one of the people who posted a video, and he said, "because too many stupid people were posting commentary." The commentary wasn't stupid at all, especially by internet standards. And I translated a good part of a video, only to see it swept away by deactivation. I have to wonder if there is a policy at work? Google doesn't reveal their policies.
bfrankbrian 3 years ago
The Enlightenment ended with Habermas.
A largely successful programme, it omitted the power of the non-rational. In communication & politics, much of what happens depends upon visual rhetoric & non-rational forms of meaning. Habermas's programme perpetuates hegemony.
We can do better.
EcoRover 3 years ago
Ohhh Gott Herr lass hirn vom Himmel fallen! was ist das eine Pfeife.Nur Floskeln und einfach dummes Gelaber.
shawndesmann 3 years ago
Rationalization is not reason.
mopsius 3 years ago
Too bad there are no subtitles.... :-0
logicalargumentz 3 years ago
What much recent debate on political theory has been missing is the fact that we continue to discuss political structures as if technology were standing still. It is in fact evolving massively and must surely impact the way we think about political processes, since technology is an immense force for change, democratization and the way we engage politics.
donoharvey 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Der war wohl in einer schlagenden Burschenschaft - oder ? Schrecklicher Typ !
edgar0001 3 years ago
Was? Woran machst du das fest? Hast du Ahnung oder laberst du einfach mal Mist daher?
entgrenzung 3 years ago
Er denkt, Habermas hätte einen Schmiss :-P
langengro 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Habermas is the ultimate herd animal. He swallowed post-war atrocity propaganda which compelled him to join an evil Marxist movement dedicated to the destruction of his people. I will throw a block party the day this piece of shit drops dead!
LawrenceErnie 3 years ago
You hate what you can not understand.
ultraconform 3 years ago 4
Democracy? Did we ever have it. Democracy, even in its real form among the ancient Greeks was always something on the edge of the abyss. And when taken as that, ancient democracies and republics were always still to some degree elitist...slaves, women and foreigners could not vote. Overpopulated areas are incapable of having real democracy.
RebelWithoutAFlaw 3 years ago