How come Veeky Forums always talks about Derrida/etc but never this guy?

How come Veeky Forums always talks about Derrida/etc but never this guy?

>Frankfurt school
Take your cultural marxism back to /leftypol/

If anything, Habermas is a boring defender of the liberal-democratic status quo.

Quite far away from the subversive 'cultural marxism' you're imagining.

Habermas is fucking boring. Public sphere was cool, communicative action is fine if you're into milquetoast liberal basic bitch shit. But he's fucking BORING. That's the biggest problem. He's reactionarily centrist to the point that he has no identity whatsoever.

I was just talking about this with someone today. Sloterdijk even mentions eugenics, and Habermas calls fifteen people a fascist. Habermas calls his mailbox a fascist for having its arm up. Habermas visits countries where people drive on the right side of the road and has an aneurysm calling every passing car a fascist on the highway. Every fucking thing that isn't milquetoast liberalism is fascist.

He's boring. He's like a plastic card table. The world is rotting and smelling like shit all around us, there are a million loose threads to pull on, and he sits down and goes "nope, this seems fine, let's wallow in this tepid ass smell for eternity, also you're a fascist."

Kek, amusingly accurate.

>defender of the liberal-democratic status quo
So I'm right. He's a defender of cultural marxism then.

>the liberal-democratic status quo.

Fuel up the helicopter boys.

Back to /pol/, kids.

Hitler here

I don't take orders from fucking dweebs like you

Because he writes like a grownup, which is "boring."

>For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.

Veeky Forums prefers younger writers that are still under the spell of utopia and revolution.

...

>Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it.

Here he is absolutely right, except for the fact that he believes 'universalist egalitarianism' and that which produced it to be good things.

Luckily, if that is the argument he's taking, he was preemptively blown the fuck out by Nietzsche.

Daily reminder that Nietzsche thought Islam was better than Christianity.

Well, he was right.

Pre-20th century Islam wasn't that bad. Even 20th/21st century Islam have their merits, all things considered.

Even if he was wrong, Christianity is still terrible.

Is Nietzsche just Shadow the Hedgehog for philosophy?

Don't cut yourself on that edge, kid.

>No rebuttal

>universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love.

Gee, thanks Christianity. Now we can't even have enough babies and are opening our countries to some decidedly un-Christian people.

>youngest member of the Frankfurt School
>came to prominence when all the other members were dead
>never experienced Judaism like Adorno & co.
>actually tried to give solutions to the problems we face in our society
>basically a liberal

Low fertility rates are an inevitable result of industrial capitalism in prosperous developed countries.

It has nothing to do with ideology, feminism or whatever other bullshit you heard on YouTube.

It has to do with feminism insofar as feminism is related to capitalism and economic prosperity.

Because Derrida has been the typical target of anti-postmodernists for decades.

Habermas is a totally different kind of philosopher and he's never attracted the kind of criticism that Derrida has.

It really has more to do with the economics of having children, along with the pill. Back in the old, earl industrial days and before that, it was economically beneficial to have loads of kids.

The opposite is the case now.

Then how do you explain Japan? They have traditional gender roles and are very strict with immigration. Yet their population is still shrinking at terminal rates, their culture is still in decline.

>The price of everything and the value of nothing

Meant for

>Habermas is a totally different kind of philosopher

Explain pls

>being the first to succeed means we will be the first to fail and be subsumed by demographics
i cry evry time

Fuck, I remember you. We had an argument about this a while ago.

I'm going to read Theory of Communicative Action at some point in the future and when I do I'd like some company/a little reading group.

I floated the idea with Veeky Forums and they didn't seem too keen. This poster probably said the same basic things in the thread I made.

Nevertheless I'm going to read it anyway, in any event, and I invite you to join me.

Here's Habermas on the post-moderns:

1. The postmodernists are equivocal about whether they are producing serious theory or literature;
2. Habermas feels that the postmodernists are animated by normative sentiments but the nature of those sentiments remains concealed from the reader;
3. Habermas accuses postmodernism of a totalizing perspective that fails "to differentiate phenomena and practices that occur within modern society";
4. Habermas asserts that postmodernists ignore that which Habermas finds absolutely central – namely, everyday life and its practices.

Read Modernity versus Postmodernity for more.

Nope. I've never discussed this on Veeky Forums in my life.

>The postmodernists are equivocal about whether they are producing serious theory or literature

That sounds like ad hominem (i.e. a thinly-veiled accusation of obscurantism/nonsense).

Which is even weirder when I note Habermas' good relationship with Derrida. Apparently he found the post-moderns quite excusable, given that Derrida was the definition of 'equivocal' with respect to producing serious theory/literature.

god /pol/ fags are such a fucking deadweight

He's a boring, insignificant, liberal.

>liberalism is bad

/pol/ack begone

>That sounds like ad hominem (i.e. a thinly-veiled accusation of obscurantism/nonsense).
Do you not share Habermas' frustration when you read things like:
>“I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions. I do not mean to say, however, that truth is therefore absent. It seems to me that the possibility exists for fiction to function in truth. One ‘fictions’ history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one ‘fictions’ a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth.”
Sauce:
>Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, Colin Gordon, ed. (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1980), 193. Cited in Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theories Are Murdering Our Past (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 1996), 151.

>insignificant
but muh public sphere and communication theory

This is precisely his limitation as a milquetoast liberal. He's spot on about the ethos of Christianity laying the foundation for the self-understanding of modernity. Yet, confronted with the short comings of modern left wing politics, his response is a conservative call to tradition. What he calls idle postmodernism is the unrealized potential of postmodern thought to overthrow the Christian ethos which has in fact held us back. The world is on the verge of crisis and we can only go forward!

Yeah, he's definitely reactionary in a very liberal sense.

He went from having standard Marxist views about Christianity/etc, to seeing religion as a good thing in society and which can exist alongside reason, with each complimenting the other.

how

his theory of communicative rationality suggests that modern western beliefs are superior to dogmatically accepted beliefs and is therefore eurocentric and thus wrong

Because 'universalist egalitarianism' obviously does not exist in the real world, for a start.

Such ideas are unnatural and serve only to artificially weaken and tame the strong whilst guaranteeing the primacy of the weak.

are you saying.. he's.. f-.. f-.. f-f-fuh..

Which part of
>Up to this very day there is no alternative to it.
didn't you understand?

Neetshit jerking off to pain and suffering is cool and all, but he doesn't propose any alternative to egalitarianism and democracy nor a way to get there.

The liberal-democratic status quo literally advocates substituting the entire populations of European countries with Africans and MENA Muslims

You can't get more radical and subversive than that. Even communism was milder in scope and means.

You should go outside once in a while.

>Neetshit jerking off to pain and suffering is cool and all, but he doesn't propose any alternative to egalitarianism and democracy nor a way to get there.

Try reading him again.

Plenty of alternatives, and arguably inevitable ones.

>dewd just like transvaluate all values man

I'm talking a political program here.

>implying political """"activism"""" is anything but a just a way for people to spew their ressentiment everywhere

>ad hominem (i.e. a thinly-veiled accusation of obscurantism/nonsense)

That's not what an ad hominem is; accusation of obscurantism isn't a great argument, but it's not an attack on the person. Habermas is saying to the post modernists, "What's your point? I can't discern whether your theories are serious arguments or just exercises in writing."

Good list; he has also referred to some of the postmodernists as being anti-Enlightenment, which he is still very committed to. And I think he has accused some of them, like Foucault, of being anti-humanist, in the sense that they reject any kind of human universality.

I like the book he did with ratzinger on the pre-political normative presuppositions of the democratic state and the communicative action.
But aside for that habermas is just smarter, german evolution of chomsky, what with all of this so-called post-metaphysical post-christianity, non-reductive materialism and shit, all easily defeated with REAL metaphysics.

i think that habermas's alternative to both republicanism and liberalism is quite interesting and not necessarily interconnected with the "every day" nor the anti-post-modern sentiment others shared above. it's a bit idealistic, i'll admit, but it's much more interesting than anyhting derrida shits out.

swear to god that dude just got paid to fuck around and make grandkids who are reckless in their own lane. that whole family line is just postpoststructuralists who think theyre the shit and hate americans, etc

so yea derrida can blow me. basically almost did. habermas is tight

actually hating amerika is good

Hardly a legitimation of mass immigration. Destroy yourself or accept outside incremental change so your entire identity is lost