this interview of Hamelink by @Tabe Bergman made me think again, one important question or query or a topic or an issue.
Over the last 30 years or so, Derridean philosophers, or social scientists /this includes also a major portion of so-called 'postcolonial' trends/, seems to have formed a formidable following. It is an extremely large sect. Their attitude to Derrida is really a pseudo-religious.
Hamelink obviously failed to establish a school in Amsterdam, and from what I understood, he is part of a critical rationalist trend, broadly speaking, one we often relate to anylitical and post-Marxist (and republican) trends. Obviously, "Habermasian" following was not established, or even if it is, it is of such a minor influence (SOCIOLOGICALLY, in academia) that is nearly negligible.
I discussed on this once with M. Kettner, asking him to whom I should write to seek a funding, or position, if I really sincerely wanted to promote a discourse-ethical frame of theorizing. Prof. Kettner was not able to point with his finger to an instituion - of course, there is one something in Frankfurt, but, I wrote to them, and I never received a response.
Why do you think that is the case? I think this is due to 'vanity factor' that is widespread in academia. When you tell them, well, there may be several different versions of discourse-ethics, they kind of retreat, they dislike your position. :) Habermasians too operate on the basis of some primordial, 'father'-figure pseudo-theological thinking. And tend to think of 'discourse ethics' as 'a major German export', which is, of course, nonsense with a very bad cluster of consequences. (My colleague from Chicago De Paul once remarked at a conference: "To German philosophers, 'it was stated by Kant or Hegel' still counts as an argument.)
All of this leads me to the following, of course tentative conclusion: Derrideans are much more skillful with social organizing, and with the basic forms of academic solidarity. They really act like sect-members. This does not apply to 'Habermasians' (Or Apelians, which is historically more accurate). In other words, as human beings, we are all egocentric, proud, and like any mirror-image. It's just that some philosophers, and social scientists, may be more supported by the external environment (the late-capitalism factor with a super-liberal credo which is postmodernist including a large military-industrical-farmaceutical sector in US and Europe), and also may be more skilfull with compensating for the weakness of their arguments by the sheer 'loudness' i.e. 'spread' of their voice.
Any opinion on this is welcome. Thank you for your feedback. #social philosophy; #movements; #academic organizing
I had one perhaps interesting discussion with Frederik van Gelder (in my inbox here) which I here share in the public interest. Perhaps other researchers would profit from it.
FG: 'it was stated by Kant or Hegel' - To this day, this seems to me a better point of departure for any discussion whatsoever. On just about anything. (Leaving out of account whatever is of a technical or scientific nature that has been discovered since their time. Ditto for the empirical world since their time.) I challenge you to falsify this statement - without recourse to pre-Kantian theology or metaphysics.
PD: https://www.ditext.com/salmon/3.html section 24
there is no need for me to falsify anything. Also, the way you put it, it is incomplete. Are you still fascinated by 'Das Sein und Das Nichst ist eins und dasselbe.'?
And I expected you would comment on the 'Habermasean' following.…
FG: That an ad hominem, a non sequitur, and a trivialisation of epistemology all in one go. Not really 'Habermas'-level at all.
PD: No, it is not. That's a section from Salmon, a very basic Logic textbook. And a quote from Hegel.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Comment