Saturday, August 12, 2017

Lars P. Syll — Habermas and Rorty on intersubjectivity and truth


This cuts for the core of liberalism.

The liberalism that characterizes the West is a political theory based on ontological, epistemological, and ethical assumptions based mostly on 18th, 19th and 20th century Anglo-American thinkers, with roots in Classical Greek thought and subsequent Christian theology.

It is assumed to be based on eternal values and truths.

This is contested even in the West, where liberalism has different interpretations and different positions contend. It is also at odds with traditionalisms globally that have different ontological, epistemological and ethical assumptions.

This dialectic, with Anglo-American liberalism dominant, is now occupying center stage in the historical dialectic globally.

Where the dust will settle remains to unfold. It is now affecting the lives of all. Hopefully, the opposition of many points of view will not lead to open conflict, especially as the US seeks to impose its rules on the international order.

But the West itself, and particularly America, is conflicted on what constitutes liberalism and how it should be administered socially, politically, and economically.

Lars P. Syll’s Blog
Habermas and Rorty on intersubjectivity and truth
Lars P. Syll | Professor, Malmo University

See also

Occidental Dissent
Charlottesville: Huge Torchlight March & Rally

Charlottesville, VA: Judge Rules in Favor of Alt-Right; ANTIFA Slashes Tires & Knocks Out Windows
Jason Wilson
Michael Cushman

The Guardian
'Increasingly Nazified' white nationalist rally descends on Virginia amid expected protests | US news | The Guardian

9 comments:

Matt Franko said...

"America, is conflicted on what constitutes liberalism"

I don't think so .... everybody pretty much is on the same page as far as what we all want as outcomes...

The problem is that nobody there is technically competent or qualified to lead the efforts...

It's a technical problem... not philosophical..

Tom Hickey said...

everybody pretty much is on the same page as far as what we all want as outcomes...

1. That's a very broad assumption. It assumes common goals, on one hand, and on the other, it ignores deep differences. For instance, some believe that full employment is a social and economic priority while others don't think it matters.

2. As far as I can see, the major issues are not technical but political. How much government should or should not be involved.

Matt Franko said...

Tom, full employment is already codified in law ...

It's call the HH Full employment Act... it was passed in the 70s...

Tom Hickey said...

And nothing has been done about it. Why? Hint: it's not technical incompetence.

Matt Franko said...

Yes it is...

Matt Franko said...

I'd give the MMT elites maybe a "C" ... I wouldn't flunk them ... but probably a "C"...

Tom Hickey said...

Yes it is...

It's based on two assumptions.

1. There is no involuntary unemployment, it's preference for leisure. (Defines the issue out of existence)

2. It's inflationary, which is the basis for NAIRU. (Resolves the issue in terms of target inflation with monetary policy)

This is not the result of incompetence. Rather it is choosing assumptions to produce desired outcomes, which is explained by Kalecki's Political Aspects of Full Employment (1943)

Matt Franko said...

You keep defaulting to the "neoliberal conspiracy!" explanation with no evidence ...

Look at Bill's blog this week pointing out Germany's current infrastructure degradation ...

You have to be believing Herr Schauble is intentionally undermining the German economy this is absurd...

Calgacus said...

Matt- Define what you would accept as evidence. By any standard, there are truckloads of evidence that "everybody pretty much is on the same page as far as what we all want as outcomes" is very, very wrong. That dangerously naive statement is what needs and does not have evidence.

Why was the whole world "technically competent" from the 30s or 40s until the 1970s & then technically incompetent?