FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W137235878> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W137235878 abstract "A repeated plea in 20th and 21st century continental philosophy has been for a greater level of engagement with the other. This engagement with the other is emphasised over approaches that take our relation to the world to entirely consist of objective mastery and control. Two good representations of this call for a greater engagement can be found in the work of Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Habermas, directing his attack against the paradigm of the philosophy of consciousness, which takes autonomy to involve objective mastery of the world, argues instead for a conception of reason and autonomy that demands a reflective engagement with others. Derrida, drawing on the work of Levinas, seeks to open a space for the other in conceptual systems that are overly exclusive. Despite their diverse approaches, there has been a recent interpretive trend to draw the two philosophers together into a complimentary relation. Rather than recognising one approach to be superior to the other, we should recognise them as each offering a unique path toward a greater level of inclusiveness of the other. In this thesis I wish to question this interpretation of complementariness. I do so not simply as a point scoring exercise to demonstrate the superiority of one philosopher over the other, but rather to demonstrate that there is a crucial transformation that Derrida generates that is lacking in Habermas’s thought. By pulling the two philosophers closer together, this crucial transformation – the transformation of the drive to totality that has been implicit to most western philosophy – can be overlooked. My hope is that by demonstrating precisely why Habermas’s approach fails to generate the level of engagement with the other that he ultimately calls for, this will bring into sharper focus the value of Derrida’s approach. Since I will be discussing the work of Derrida and Habermas in relation to their respective responses to the problem of modernity, I begin in the introduction by discussing the various critiques of modernity against which Derrida and Habermas’s thought can be situated, followed by a discussion of the interpretation of the two philosophers that places them in a complementary relation. In the first chapter I will then give a detailed discussion of Habermas’s response to the problems of modernity. Focusing in particular on Habermas’s transformation from the paradigm of the philosophy of consciousness to the paradigm of mutual understanding, I will argue that this transformation does not overcome the problems that Habermas diagnoses but simply shifts them to another level – in particular I will argue that it sustains the hostility toward the other that the philosophy of consciousness generates. In the second chapter I will argue that Derrida presents a transformation of the ideals of modernity – such as reason and autonomy – beyond the drive to totality under which they have traditionally been interpreted. This will involve separating my 2 interpretation from the ethical interpretation, which still takes Derrida working with a totalising ideal, even though this ideal is recognised as impossible. In the third and fourth chapters I will focus on the problem of democracy and pluralism, discussing Derrida and Habermas’s respective attempts to build a model of democracy that is respectful of pluralism. I will argue that Habermas’s response is ultimately hostile to pluralism by promoting an ideal of totality which sees all difference resolved. I will then argue that Derrida, by seeking to transform this drive for totality, generates a political ethos that is more respectful of pluralism. Finally, in the last chapter I will discuss Derrida and Habermas’s respective responses to the problem of globalisation, arguing that this is representative of their respective responses to modernity in general: Habermas’ cosmopolitanism still operates with the nationalistic ethos whereas Derrida’s seeks to go beyond it. I will thus conclude that Derrida’s transformation of the ideals of modernity goes beyond Habermas’s approach by seeking to transform the drive for unity which persists in Habermas’s thought." @default.
• W137235878 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W137235878 creator A5012958430 @default.
• W137235878 date "2013-01-01" @default.
• W137235878 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W137235878 title "Responding to the Other: Derrida, Habermas and the Transformation of Reason and the Political" @default.
• W137235878 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W137235878 type Work @default.
• W137235878 sameAs 137235878 @default.
• W137235878 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W137235878 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W137235878 hasAuthorship W137235878A5012958430 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C186720457 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C25343380 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C2777886440 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C65414064 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C77088390 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C79841651 @default.
• W137235878 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C111472728 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C138885662 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C144024400 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C17744445 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C186720457 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C199539241 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C25343380 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C2777886440 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C41008148 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C41895202 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C527412718 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C65414064 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C77088390 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C79841651 @default.
• W137235878 hasConceptScore W137235878C94625758 @default.
• W137235878 hasLocation W1372358781 @default.
• W137235878 hasOpenAccess W137235878 @default.
• W137235878 hasPrimaryLocation W1372358781 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W1412279024 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W1535726094 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W1584538368 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W1594710293 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W1969840498 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2018621708 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2041499419 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2043396455 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2060509408 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2086517812 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2105499358 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2106406187 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2204704694 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2266146133 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2332793999 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2527911252 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2554117799 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2566109572 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2583218447 @default.
• W137235878 hasRelatedWork W2898665557 @default.
• W137235878 isParatext "false" @default.
• W137235878 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W137235878 magId "137235878" @default.
• W137235878 workType "article" @default.