Talk:Jürgen Habermas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

I am curious as to why Habermas' entry contains no criticism whatsoever, aside from what is vaguely alluded to in the paragraph on Derrida. This is strange not only because many other philosophers' entries feature extensive write-ups of criticisms (just look at the entries on Derrida or Hegel--even Zizek has a whole page of criticism devoted to him). (Bryan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.110.111.153 (talk) 20:31, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

revised external links

There was a repetition of the link to the Habermas Forum, which i've deleted. The remaining citation has been revised: The Forum is not updated weekly (the deleted citation indicated "weekly"; but the Forum *is* updated from time to time), and it's largely in German. The Johns Hopkins article is inaccessible to non-paying readers, so it's placed at the end. "The Jürgen Habermas Web Resource" and "Jürgen Habermas, On Society and Politics" are outdated resources, unrevised from the mid-1990s, so I've placed them at the end of the list. Habermas' recent article on Europe has been placed closer to the top of the list. Gedavis 00:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Old talk

When this article was placed on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page, I stated that the section explaning his philosophy was handicapped with jargon -- & was greeted with an assertion that the problem of comprehension lay with me, rather than the text. My use of the word "jargon" was to point out a number of words that obscure the meaning of this exposition of Habermas' philosophy (if I may use it in the German sense of the word as a comprehensive viewpoint), rather than to help enlighten it. Allow me to illustrate these obscurities with this account of a critical reading ("critical" in the sense to extract information) of the 2 paragraphs I have a problem with.

Habermas's main aim has been to construct a social theory that is also a non-oppressive and inclusive universalist moral framework.

My immediate response to this sentence is "that's nice, but why should I care?" This sentence contains a number of terms that I suspect from the context have specialized meanings, & perhaps may not be identical with how I am accustomed to using them. "Construct" is perhaps the most obvious example: in normal conversation it is used to describe the building of a physical object, while here I know it refers to the systematic exposition of a philosophical viewpoint.

Another term is the phrase "non-oppressive". I'm not aware of any social theory that was constructed with the explicit purpose of being oppressive, although some can be abused -- as can any social theory -- to justify social ills such as warfare, slavery or class systems (if this is what is meant by "oppression"). Does the appearance of this adjective imply that Habermas has offered a critique for all existing social theories of why they end up abused to justify "oppression"? If so, what is his explanation; the failure to explain his critique leads me to feel that I have walked into the middle of a discussion, where much has already been agreed to & I am now excluded from understanding.

All of which leads back to the question, "that's nice, but why should I care?" Because this is expressed on such an abstract level, I see no obvious way to connect this to daily questions of morality or ethics. It has as much relevance to me as the interminable debates over the nature of Christ.

The framework rests on the argument that all speech acts have an inherent telos--the goal of mutual understanding, and that human beings possess the communicative competence to bring about such understanding.

Here the hyperlinks signal again that technical words are being used: "speech acts" have a meaning possibly different from what I might expect; "telos", is clearly an unknown word, possibly borrowed from from the Greek, yet is crucial for understanding this sentence; even "understanding" is flagged, whcih suggests the word possibly has a restricted meaning. Even worse, when I first read this sentence, neither "speech acts" nor "telos" linked to existing articles, & I was left with no way to remedy my ignorance.

The term "speech acts" particularly adds obscurity to this sentence. Are we to assume that this refers to de Saussure's theory of communication? The right of free speech -- & if so, according which legal definition? Or is it limited to only the act of exercising it? This is why a "featured article" must needs be self-contained.

Habermas built the framework out of the speech-act philosophy of Austin and Searle, the theories of moral development of Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, and the discourse ethics of his Heidelberg colleague Karl-Otto Apel.

Here is my only clue to the possible meaning of the term "speech acts", which verifies that this is a defined term, an example, if you will, of jargon. If I was familiar with Austin or Searle, I could then draw an inference about what this term meant, & know precisely what the second sentence attempted to convey. But at this point, it's hard for me to conclude otherwise than to say, "Yes, people use language to oppress one another. I was taught in Sunday School that lying is bad." Or, if I wanted to be a little less low-brow, I could allude to what George Orwell wrote in his essay, "Politics and the English Language", where he demonstrates how the abuse of words for political gain leads to their loss of meaning.

But obviously Habermas's intentions was more than to serve as a gloss on Orwell's observations.

Within sociology, Habermas's major contribution is the development of a comprehensive theory of societal evolution and modernization focusing on the difference between communicative rationality and rationalization on the one hand and strategic/instrumental rationality and rationalization on the other.

Again, I am left with a feeling of standing in a fog bank of abstractions. I can infer from the context that there are two binary sets of qualities here: the use of reason in communicating, in for example speaking to another person, opposed with "rationalization"; & the use of reason in a larger sense -- apparently as either a guide to live one's life by or as a tool to infer truth from evidence -- again opposed with "rationalization". However, this inference gives me nothing I can use to distinguish Habermas' thesis from simple common sense. I have a vague unease that the word "rationalization" is meant in a specific, restricted sense, but I cannot infer its meaning from the context. Are we talking about Sophistry, the skill of persuasion taught in ancient Greece which Plato condemned? (If I were to say "Joe's explanation is a rationalization", I am identifying Joe's argument as a deceptive justification for an act that he cannot morally defend.) However, there is not enough here for me to accept or reject this supposition about the word "rationalization", & I am left with drawing a facile interpretation. Civilization obviously developed from people persuading each other to do their biddings, & people persuaded themselves how to live their lives; parsing this sentence, I am left with what I feel is a simplistic explanation, & puzzled why this should be considered a new insight.

This includes a critique from a communicative standpoint of the differentiation-based theory of social systems developed by Niklas Luhmann, a student of Parsons.

Here is a clue that my interpretation of the previous snetence is missing some subtle point. Habermas obviously expounded something new about the act of communication, but because of the undefined use of the term "speech acts" above, I have no way to understand what it is. I might as well be trying to understand the differences between Monophysitism and Monothelitism.

His defence of modern society and civil society has been a source of inspiration to others, and is considered a major philosophical alternative to the varieties

of poststructuralism. He has also offered an influential analysis of late capitalism.

I have no significant problem with these sentences, although it would be helpful to know who have been inspired by Habermas, & if they are activists or philosophers.

Habermas sees the rationalization, humanization, and democratization of society in terms of the institutionalization of the rationality potential that is inherent in the communicative competence that is specific to the human species, has developed through the course of evolution, but in contemporary society is suppressed or weakened by the way in which major domains of social life, such as the market, the state, and organizations, have been given over to or taken over by strategic/instrumental rationality, so that the logic of the system supplants that of the lifeworld.

Here I find a confirmation of my suspicion that "rationalization" has a restricted meaning in this essay. Could it mean the sum of literature, but in the manner people use to communciate to each other -- the author, alive or dead, speaking to the reader, & transmits her/his ethics & judgements? I have no way to know, & no way to know if this is even Habermas' own terminology; students, as they explain their master's ideas, inadvertently alter them, & thus come to transmit their own ideas. And if this is the case, then I am left wondering how it relates to alternate POVs -- for example, Roland Barthes & his assertions that the reader ought to be the master of the text, rather than the author. -- llywrch 00:54, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• A lot of Habermas scholars freely admit that he leans too heavily on jargon. It can make him very difficult to study and interpret, as you rightly pointed out. On a possibly unrelated note, sociology in general has sometimes been accused of hiding behind jargon since its perceived failure in the 60s. I think that's interesting food for thought, for both the human and natural sciences. I'm with Barthes on this one too... -- Colm O'Brien 19:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This is one of the best articles I've seen on wikepedia, so I am not inclined to mess with it. Still, it seems rather breathless, something one doesn't usually associate with an encyclopedia article. Shouldn't some misgivings that many people have with Habermas's theory be mentioned, such as it not being clear that he has integrated the life-world idea, with its "authentic communication", very successfully with the system theory? Or that Habermas never really answered Luhmann's point that Habermas' notion of the ideal speech situation is hopelessly utopian, because of the problem of time pressure? Finally, the reader of this piece would be surprised to learn that, largely as a result of these problems, Habermas' reputation as a theorist has been eclipsed in Germany itself by Luhmann's.

Also, one could mention that Habermas's stubborn pro-Americanism (at least until the Iraq war of Bush 2) alienated many progressives. Hyperion 04:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Silly Question

I give up! Why is Habermas's face disfigured? Was it deformed at birth, injured in war? Not that it makes a difference. Lestrade 17:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

Habermas has a cleft palate, for which he also had painful surgery as a small child. He discussed this for the first time in public in his talk when receiving the Kyoto prize a year or two ago: Public space and political public sphere (pp. 2-4). Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Gedavis 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not so silly. After just hearing about him and viewing his picture I had a near-immediate question along the same lines. The article provided by Gedavis is a short one that not only helps explain the cleft issue and the surgeries but his philosophies. Why is this not included in his bio? Right now, the only non-academia focused aspects of his life is restricted to one line. The place of birth! Could be filled out a bit more with this reference, no? Or is there a reason why its not been considered over the past three years? Maltiti2005 (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it must be included (the cleft) not mentioning it is very weird...since it is the first thing that comes to mind if one sees or hears him for the first time
...btw: does anyone know how the create a "people with cleft palate"-category ? ;)

Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Diarrhea

This article suffers from way too many run-on sentences. These make understanding very difficult. I know the trend now is toward obscurity and diarrhea, but

It may not be unreasonable to generalize that schematic terminology such as poststructuralism, trafficked heavily in the United States but virtually unknown in France yet imported into some of Habermas's readings of his French contemporaries, inflected their exchanges with the vitriol of the "culture wars" which had begun to rage in the American academy and helped overheat matters at a time when many prominent European academics saw strategic value and career opportunities in extending their influence in America, arguably the world's largest market for academic imports.

is an atrocious sentence. Unreadable. 198.59.188.232 22:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. This article is horribly written. I will see what I can do in the next week or two, and hopefully others will do the same. --Valve 07:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong photo?

Are we sure that's a picture of Jurgen Habermas? There's a theologian called Gary Habermas who seems more likely to be found conversing with cardinals. You can see a photo of Jurgen Habermas here, although I can't tell if it's the same man as the one in the article's photo. --The Famous Movie Director 01:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Having seen Habermas in person as well as in many pictures, I would attest to the fact that a) this is a photo of Jürgen Habermas and b) it actually looks quite similar to the one on www.vernix.org, it's just from a different angle. Whether a photograph of him with Ratzinger is the ideal photo to use is a separate question. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's definately him, but I don't think that it's the best one. Associating him so directly with the church isn't really appropriate. Euchrid 03:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added another photo—not a particularly good one, but I hope it'll be okay for the time being. <KF> 23:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As we seem to agree it's his photo, I've restored it - 3 photos is not too much.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice photo?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotes?

Does anyone who knows Habermas' work feel like putting a few key quotes on Wikiquote and linking this article to that? That would be very useful for those like myself who want an introduction to the man's work. Ewjw 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

His work has been called Neo-Marxist - please see the entry on weasel words and change the article accordingly. '-129.247.247.238 10:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)'

'Neo-Marxism' is a specific mode of thinking that incorporates the 'cultural turn' (amongst other things) in Western Marxism from Lukacs and Gramsci, through to the Frankfurt School - inclusive of Habermas - and the likes of Claus Offe, Fred Block, Bob Jessop and Nicos Poulantzas. It is less positivistic and authoritarian than orthodox Marxism, explores reasons as to why revolution didn't materialise in Western Europe as Marx predicted and reappraises the base-superstructure relationship, amongst other things. So to call it 'neo-Marxist' is not necessarily wrong - Morgan Rodgers Gibson 18:17 (+10 GMT) 19 July, 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 08:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC).

Habermas as pragmatist

The Habermas article is entirely too focused up front on the neo-Marxist beginnings of his contribution to political thought. Early on, he endeavored to bring pragmatism into Critical Theory, more than to advance neo-Marxism. His work after 1980 left neo-Marxism behind in terms of the pragmatics of communicative action mapped broadly into contemporary social sciences and philosophy.

I was surprised earlier today to see that the Wikipedia article on pragmatism not only has no subsection on Habermas, but no mention of him. I made that point at the "Talk" feature of the pragmatism article. Also, I've edited the first paragraph of the Habermas article to simply indicate Habermas' association with pragmatism, which is a keynote of his career.

I admit, I'm biased toward the basic conceptual character of his contributions over his applied political work. Gedavis 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing that needs to be done

MAJOR WORKS:

Someone has done a number on that list, as the years seem meant to refer to German editions, but some of the English titles are only available in English and were published on dates different from what's indicated, as compilations of scattered German/English work. E.g., Communication & the Evolution of Society is English-only, 1979 (not 1976, the date of "What is Universal Pragmatics?"). On the Pragmatics of Communication is English-only, 1998 (not 1992). "Technology and Science as Ideology" (listed as 1968) is actually an essay within Toward A Rational Society (1968, I believe; not 1967). Justification and Application was indeed 1991 in English, I believe, but the German was 1988? Give up the confused idea of German publication dates for English titles. Legitimation Crisis, 1975; TCA, 1984/1986?; MCCA, 1991; and most others should be changed.

SEE ALSO:

Delete reference to Bioconservatism and Zoran Đinđić. It may be appropriate to link from those article to the Habermas article, but not the converse, as neither relates substantially to Habermas' concerns (as far as I know).

EXTERNAL LINKS:

The Johns Hopkins Guide is a subscription service---and the article there provides less information than Wikipedia"?

Gedavis 01:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

This article is NOT Good Article material. There is no referencing, and there are too many lists throughout the article. I can't verify a lot of the information in the article as well (and there are no sources). --GoOdCoNtEnT 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional patriotism

I've just set up an article on constitutional patriotism, if anyone wants to help expand it. It might also be worth a mention in this article. Cordless Larry 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon

Hi, I'm interested in Habermas and his ideas, but I would like help from an expert. Is it regarded that the work of Habermas is a resolution from the origins of the Anglo people and the Saxons?Withit 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

wikification

there is way WAY too much wikifying here. i suggest that lots of it be removed. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

This article was marked as a possible copyright violation from [1], but to me it looks like sociologyprofessor.com is infringing Wikipedia's copyright. Conscious 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Marked where? Which parts?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 January 7/Articles. Conscious 10:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The "methodical atheist" who supposedly celebrates the value of Christianity to today's secular world

I just deleted one paragraph for a few reasons. It wasn't clear what its point was. Somebody had just edited it objecting that a quote it contained was not by Habermas, but by another -- yet there was a link provided to an article and in that article the other *is* in fact quoting Habermas. The linked article itself was a piece of bombastic propaganda published by Catholics. It asserted, "Cardinal Ratzinger summoned [sic] Habermas". That diction is part of the bombast I'm alluding to; Ratzinger [he wasn't yet the Pope] "summoned" SOME REMARKS by Habermas. That's an auxiliary meaning of the word "summon", used as a rhetorical flourish.

Habermas has published oodles of essays and books over 50 years. In a short article like the current Wikipedia entry, you need to be clear on why you make the choices you make for which pieces of his thought to include. And you need to take care not to lose track of what you're doing during text editing.

Whoever cites from this Habermas essay of 2004, "A time of transition", please provide the context of Habermas' recent activities and writings and explain how it fits in to that context. And please choose others articles to link to. Hurmata 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A Marxist or Not?

Should we consider Habermas as a Marxist philosopher or as a philosopher who exploits the theoretical tools of Marxism? He never was a revolutionary. 88.230.23.12 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's a Neomarxist. MPS 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

...that argument is hard to establish...while he did come out of neomarxist circles, his mehtods have very little reselmblance to anything considered Marxist...I know some people don't even classify him as part of the frankfurt school for that reason.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "many of the central tenets of Habermas' thought remain broadly Marxist in nature" should be deleted, or evidence should be given. Currently it is unclear what these supposed "many tenets" are. Moreover, the quoted sentence is misleading, as it could be interpreted that Habermas is a thinker of the radical left, whereas he rather is supporting and explaining modern western societies based on democracy and capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.220.114 (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Robert Shelly

As this philosopher is listed as an important one being influenced by Habermas, I had decided to create a stub for him, even few information on his regard was available on the web. The stub has been deleted and thus I propose to remove its name from the Infobox. I will perform this in a few days if nobody replies. tresoldi 23:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed Robert Shelly from the list; if anybody intends to adds him back (as there is probably some motivation), please create at least a stub of his own before. tresoldi 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bourdieu and Habermas

I could contribute a short section on the relation between Habermas and Bourdieu. There are parallels to the Derrida section 'overleaf'

I find the sections on Derrida and Bourdieu to be quite un-encyclopedic and un-Wikpedialike in both content and tone, containing a lot of POV (e.g. "this spat seems tragic") and original research (e.g. "Here we might imagine the missing somatic dimension to this sad story" and "The point of this imagined reconstruction is to show how European intellectual academic discourse has no techniques to negotiate or surmount the emotional difficulties that are undoubtedly caused by such events as attacks"), not to mention such statements as "Jürgen Habermas stunned his admirers not long ago", without a single reference. And the sections are weak on intellectual content and more like gossip columns. For example, Habermas devoted an entire chapter in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity to Derrrida. If there's going to be a Derrida section, then that chapter should at least be summarized. I'm intending sometime soon to go in and take out all of the POV and original research, but thought that before doing so I should at least bring up the issue on this page and see what others think. Jjshapiro (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to take out this relationship altogether. It tends to the normative fragmentation and individualisation of philosophers. How about this for a reference? Bourdieus analysis of culture should be of value in contributing to the missing critique of non-verbal cultural in TCA with its sociological and empirical base, but Habermas's assistant Axel Honneth made a devastating critique of Bourdieus position in the Eighties effectively closed any possibility of collaboration (1986, Theory, culture and Society 3, 3, p55) According to Honneth Bourdieu's theoretical structure never broke free from the Philosophy of Consciousness and the Marxist theory of labour in spite of its sociological heritage. [Footnote: For Habermas's subtle critique of Marx's Theory of Labour Value see Habermas's 'Knowledge and Human Interests', Szczels (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert but used TCA in my doctorate: http://www.stefan-szczelkun.org.uk/phd401.htm

Szczels (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You could also work on the article for TCA itself, The Theory of Communicative Action. After two years, it's still a stub. Hurmata (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK will do. Most people read Volume 1 only if that. Volume 2 is at least as interesting and probably more radical. Szczels (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Zwiespältigkeit

Zwiespältigkeit doesn't mean "ambivalence" in some psychological sense. In this context it means something like the tension, contradiction, or dichotomy in Schelling's thought.

Whatever it means, it is not 'Zwiespältigkeit' but 'Zweispältigkeit' and has been corrected - --Wikiain 17:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiain (talk • contribs)

Vis-a-vis Derrida,Bordieu

Admittedly, the sections appear to be pretty accurate. Unfortunately, neither appear to reach basic standards for references, etc. that would be expected of an article on Britney Spears. For instance: poststructuralism "unheard of" in Europe? I hardly believe it. Such claims are strikingly broad and without documentation hardly seem worthy to appear in their current form. I think this is a more than fair justification for the Original Research tags, which I have applied to these two subjects. I am not overly familiar with Habermas's work and therefore did not tag the whole page, but I believe I understand enough of the academic climate to ask more of the editors and the contributors to this page than what currently appears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.235.170 (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This unsigned comment which admits to be 'not overly familiar' with Habermas (!) should not be left as the last word here. The section on Derrida is well informed, concise and important in contextualising Habermas as a European philosopher. Szczels (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected several assumptions made by the author, removed some WP:OR, and cited everything in that section...looks prity good nowCoffeepusher (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

This page is gathering quite a collection of blogs, discussion groups and other links that does not comply with Wikipedia external link policy. I am going to try and clean them up a bit.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Habermas discussion group at Yahoo! Groups

Listing of this group in "External Links" complies with Wikipedia guidelines, so the listing has been restored. It is a moderated resource which requires scholarly involvement with Habermas' work for discussion. It's sole purpose is to advance scholarly involvement with Habermas' work. I, the moderator, would gladly discuss any concerns about its compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Gedavis (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have several problems with this link. First off I fail to see how it informs the reader about Habermas himself. The group seems focused on discussion of his concepts and their opinions of them. unfortunately the discussion is largely inaccessible (as opposed to being accessible which is one requirement for external links) to the general population, relying on the readers complete understanding of Habermas and familiarity of arguments that have come before in order to even understand what is going on. Additionally the opinions of these scholars while most likely worthy, are in fact self published, not peer reviewed, and would fail wikipedia's reliable source standard. that and I am not sure if these individuals would fall under wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies, which is the exception for the blog requirement. I have some other problems, but this is a good start and was wondering what you thought?Coffeepusher (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "problems" seem genuinely expressed, but a moderated site defined to be about his work with an archive available to anyone "informs the reader" as well as any journal discussion. You might not be informed, but scholars of Habermas doing their dissertations on him are. One can find a link useful or not; but your opinion doesn't justify removing the link. "The group" are Habermas scholars. The discussion is less difficult to understand than any of Habermas' essays or books. Indeed, the point of the decade-old group is to be a resource for a very difficult philosopher. Anyone can subscribe, and thus finds the "Files" section having a wide array of works by Habermas available, many hard to find otherwise. Your evaluation of the content is quite presumptuous. All active discursants are Habermas scholars; a peer review process is being demonstrated. Habermas' work is essentially about discursive interaction; the group, as best I can ensure, exemplifies what Habermas' work coneptualizes. The group is not a blog. It is a forum for Habermas scholars, originally at the University of Virginia, which ceased sponsoring academic groups. Gedavis (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"You might not be informed" "your evaluation of the content is quite presumptuous" That is just insulting coming over the computer. I am sure that Gary would never intend to randomly insult an anonymous stranger on a board about Habermas, a theorist who has certain opinions about using intimidation during discourse, and the quality of those people who do.

so back to our discussion. I am open to having this link, but would require some justification without any “you” statements for me to be persuaded that this link should stand (I think that is reasonable, please keep your conversation on the topic and try and not make presumptions on who I am or my personal character…reasonable yes?) Reasons I see for this “links normally to be avoided” First off, I will buy your reason for the content, however as I said there are a few other problems. The first reason is #6, in order to gain the full site a user must register (although I assume no malicious intent on the part of your group), next is #10 “links to…discussion forms/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)” It specifically said Discussion forms and Yahoo groups as a link to be avoided. Even if it wasn’t directly covered in #10, #11 “fansites” could also cover it.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary, please consider that your current post to the Yahoo group violates Wikipedia's norms of Meatpuppeting, and shows that you are attempting to WP:LINKSPAM your group. Wikipedia has community norms that should be followed when you choose to use this electronic space, and for someone who studies Habermas you will understand how those norms came to be and how they opperate. I ask that you respect those norms, and if you choose to continue with this discussion please follow the norms of wikipedia rather than your own personal agenda.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that characterizing this as "linkspam" is not fair, and I'd like to remind everyone in this discussion to keep in mind the suggestion to assume good faith of other editors as well as the external link guidelines. I have no strong opinion either way about whether the link to the Yahoo group should be retained, but on first glance it seems like an informative enough resource on Habermas to be worth considering as a "further reading"-type reference link although it hasn't been used as a source for the writing of the article itself (this is what the reliable source policy is about and hence I think it's not really to the point in this discussion). -- Rbellin|Talk 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I called it linkspam because Gary is the moderator of this group, and I was a little steamed at the attempt to meatpuppet within the group. again the extermal link guidelines spacifically say that you should avoid discussion groups as well as Yahoo groups, and the individuals who participate within the group do not qualify under notablility guidelines (I am not saying they do not know what they are talking about, but I do believe that the exception to the discussion group guideline would be a discussion that contained notable individuals).Coffeepusher (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that Yahoo! Groups were specifically discouraged, though I support that, given the interests of most groups. My motivation for maintaining the address for Habermas scholars is to promote accurate public understanding of Habermas as a philosopher (rather than "mere" social theorist, sociologist, or public intellectual). It's not a general discussion group; it's not for social networking. As to "meatpuppeting" (an odd term---Wikipedially self-referential), that was not my intent. I didn't suggest that any subscriber join this discussion, only that there was occasion for reflection about the quality of our interaction that causes a Wikipedia policeman to find the group inappropriately informative. The intent of the site is overtly to promote understanding of Habermas and scholarly Habermasian exchanges. It's regrettable that Habermas is commonly understood relative to Cold War times and the youth of his career (Marxism) that he left behind long ago.

It's also regrettable that one has to subscribe to the group to access the many articles/essays/lectures by Habermas that are available there. I'll try to find time to transfer all of those to a freely-accessible server.

I noted yesterday here (this is a revision) that there's no self-promotion by the Yahoo! site, simply interest in seeing Habermas appreciated. But I realize that's untrue. I deeply admire Habermas' work, understand him very well, and do what I can to exemplify the value of his work.

But, if one wants a good introduction to Habermas, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article by James Bohman, not the Wikipedia article, which is several touches on the elephant, but not very cognizant of Habermas's work generally, especial as philosopher. The Wikipedia article would be good material for critical discussion at the group, for the sake of improving the article. But who has the time? Gedavis (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea of finding a way to put the links onto a non-subscription aria. I would support a link that offers free access to those materials regardless of what the host site was.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

that includes your Yahoo groups siteCoffeepusher (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who cares enough about Jürgen Habermas' work to google him and follow up will locate the Yahoo! Group and see, quite without subscription, the entire archive of discussion; it's quite clear that subscribing is worthwhile, if only to check out the files available. I don't promote subscription. The group is not advertised anywhere. I was not looking for anybody's approval at Wikipedia by offering the link. It was a matter of promoting understanding of Habermas. Most of the ordinary participants at the group are PhDs specializing in Habermas' work. I have studied with him and been involved with his work for over 30 years. Anyone who wants reliable referral to refereed scholarship on Habermas or work in English by him is welcome to inquire via the owner address at the site and through subscriber contact with other scholars who subscribe. gary e. davis Gedavis (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious "working group international economy" discussion under "biography"

A bizarrely large part of the "biography" section is not about Habermas at all, but describes at length a group with which he reportedly had some sort of conflict (the nature of which isn't clear). Even if this were important, it should go in a sub-section, rather than constituting 40% of Habermas's "biography" -- *but* I don't think this episode is WP-worthy, taking as evidence that the Deutsch entry for Habermas (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas) does not make any mention of it. So: I am deleting it. If you feel that this is important, please respond here first so we can talk it over. 134.174.140.216 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the radically pro-Christian statement that Habermas either did or didn't make?

The article quotes him:

"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."

The article continues:

The statement has been misquoted in a number of articles in American newspapers and magazines.

I assume that the misquotation in question is this statement attributed to Habermas currently on dozens of sites all over the web:

"Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

The two quotations attributed to Habermas differ enormously. The second implies that human rights and democracy cannot be nourished from any source other than Christianity, and perhaps cannot exist in a non-Christian society. It places Habermas in the most culturally conservative 10% of the "Clash of Civilizations" debate. But the first says something completely different: that "Universalistic egalitarianism" is historically rooted in Christianity and Judaism, but it is universalistic egalitarianism, not Christianity, that is the sole nourisher of democracy etc. He's not saying that universalistic egalitarianism can't flourish in a secular or non-Christian society. He's attacking post-modern critiques of the Enlightenment, but the misquotation is constantly used to bolster dire warnings of the Islamicization of Europe.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, a very influential forum, recently repeated this misquotation preceded by: "even the prominent German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who is an atheist, has acknowledged that..." [2]

The confusion that this misquotation has created is so pervasive that is should be addressed more clearly here. How about:

The statement has been misquoted in a number of articles in American newspapers and magazines. Habermas did not say that "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this we have no other options. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source."

Thoughts? 207.68.240.26 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the source of the confusion is a misreading of an English translation of an Italian magazine. The last two sentences are indeed from the same source as the full correct quotation (his essay "A Time of Transition," 2004) but the first one ("Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization") is the journalist's claim about what he thinks Habermas means.[3] 207.68.240.26 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, here is an external link that discusses this mis-quotation at length, even quoting Habermas's own attempts to clear up this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedwalls (talk • contribs) 04:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

All educated sources say that he did not said that. Why is this still in here? --TobiasVetter (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, pleeeaase remove this quote asap: see http://www.habermasforum.dk/index.php?type=news&text_id=460 for the very plausible history of this misquotation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.2.235.194 (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Questions

So I may be attending a Habermas lecture soon, and there is the possibility of me asking a question. Are there any y'all would like? I realize that my report is no WP:RS or even WP:Vable, but it might clear some obscure point up. --Gwern (contribs) 00:14 24 September 2009 (GMT)

I didn't manage to ask any questions (didn't understand him through the accent & sound system), but y'all will be pleased to know that the person giving the introduction said that this is a 'very good' article on Habermas. So kudos! --Gwern (contribs) 23:34 30 September 2009 (GMT)

(And if anyone wants the prepared text, email me. It doesn't seem to be online elsewhere.) --Gwern (contribs) 23:12 7 October 2009 (GMT) 23:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Metaphorical language

In the section "The public sphere," there is a continuous use of spatial metaphors. The title of his book is translated as The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, when actually it is Structural Changes of Publicity. Everywhere there are "spheres" and "spaces." Is this a typical academic attempt to mystify and astound the reader, instead of merely conveying useful information?Lestrade (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

while this is a long dead discussion I wanted to mention that you are correct that both translations would be accurate, the book itself did concern itself with the "spaces" in which this type of discussion was possible. I think it is an over simplification to suggest that the reason for the use of spacial metaphor was some sort of academic gate keeping technique. the book itself concerned itself with "the marketplace, salons, coffeeshops, and the conversations created in letters and newspapers" and dealt with spaces other than the royal court where the bourgeoisie were able to shape society. while it is now been taken to a more metaphorical phrase the maintenance of the space metaphor is used because the "public sphere" is traditionally a space where two embodied people engage in discourse. it doesn't have to be embodied but that is a counterfactual ideal for Habermas.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

geographer?

does habermas self-identify as a geographer? someone please explain.

The link was actually an Easter egg leading to Human geography. Even though Habermas can be said to have worked in this field, it is very misleading to present him as a geographer in the lead. This belongs with a proper sourced explanation in the main article text instead, so I have removed it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

I've noted what looks like rather close paraphrasing between The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Jurgen Habermas [4] and ours. I removed a couple of sentences in the biography section that were copypasted. There may be more.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/habermas/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know exactly how to handle it - that copy checking software seems very useful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

cleft palate/admin/conflict resolution

..to not include that he has cleft palate is (respectfully) quite ridiculous.
it is clearly referenced...and I can't for my life see where in the BLP it says, that it has to be explicitly/directly stated in the article
and it is his most striking personal feature, and not knowing that he was born with it might lead people (who listen to his talks) to think that he had a stroke or a similar condition
I find it also not fair to one of the most referenced philosopher of our time, that this omitted because of a technicality. ps:a nice quote: "Look, it doesn't matter what might be in a ref..." well, it's nice that mr.cobwebs admits he really didn't take the minimal amount of care to this and doesn't regard the actual content of WP.
thank you for your contribution and making WP a better place.

Regards, Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• The cleft palate should be mentioned in the article, not because it is interesting for people to know, but because he himself (in the first essay in Between Naturalism and Religion) describes it as part of the reason that he began theorizing about communication, and the reason he preferred the written word. See also this paper: Clifford, Stacy, Disabling Democracy: How Disability Reconfigures Deliberative Democratic Norms (2009). APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1451092 ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The editor who added the "cleft palate" category did so initially without a source or reference of any kind. That was certainly a BLP violation, and it was rightly reverted. It makes no difference here at all that the category might apply - it still requires a source. I suggest adding something to the article about it, with a proper source, and then adding the category. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but your shifting goalposts even more. It is a proper source. No doubt about it. You haven't even removed it.

Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It is very simple: If there is no sourced mentioning of him having a cleft palate (or why it is notable) in the article text itself, then the category is unwarranted and will be removed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe this. It is his most striking feature. Anybody who looks or listens to him and has some understanding of it immediately notices it.
One could even argue that there doesnt even have to be a reference to it. It's the most self-eviden thing (!) and if you two had least had taken the minimal amout of care in checking the reference, you would have read it and understood why it is notable and breathtakingly obvious
Regards Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is generally no reason to include information about the most striking or obvious physical attributes of philosophers, we don't include mention of Sartre's bad teeth or Ayn Rand's cute butt. It just so happens that Habermas' cleft palate is relevant to his philosophy and biography, and that tehre is a reasonable amount of scholarly writing that mentions it. This is why we include it. Also for the record i don't think the category makes much sense, especially if Habermas is going to be the only member.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I must disagree.
First of all this is a 08/15 BLP and attributes like it are included in other b's. Just because he is a philosopher doesn't mean he deserves some special/better/lesser treatment...and as far as I've read, there are no special guidelines for people of different trades in wp, just BLP.

btw: no, ayn rand didn't have a cute butt, but had bad breath and a not showering attitude were/was in her repertoire (ps: unfortunately I couldn't find any references for that anymore ;) #stillsearching )
btw2:I've got a couple lined up already (e.g. Joaquin Phoenix)
Regards
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that is special treatment, and I didn't mean just for philosophers. Generally there is no reason to describe physical characteristics unless they are relevant in relation to the reason that the person is notable. Perhaps for actors or performing artists, otherwise there isn't. We also don't need to know that Beethoven was crosseyed or that Lyndon B. Johnson was overweight. Unless reliable scholarly sources have found it to be notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Habermas" should redirect here

This has been bugging me for a while now. Currently "Habermas" redirects to a disambiguation page with Jürgen Habermas and a theologian named Gary Habermas. I know that "primary usage" is a bit abstract, but we are talking about someone who is arguably the most influential European social and political theorist of the last half century here. Even within evangelical theology, it seems unlikely that Gary approaches that kind of stature (I might be wrong about this, though anecdotally I have never confused any theologians I know by referring to Habermas without his first name). Can we redirect? (Posting here because my post several months ago at the dab page still has no response).Binkyping (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Habermas" doesn't redirect to a disambiguation page: it quite simply is a disambiguation page. That's as it should be. The disambiguation page is perfectly proper the way it is, and shouldn't be turned into any kind of redirect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree here, While I don't personally know a lot about Gary it appears that his followers would have a legitimate complaint if they typed in "Habermas" and ended up here. A disambiguation page solves all these problems.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015

Tjmullally01 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

AT END OF "TEACHER AND MENTOR" SECTION ADD (WITH LINKS TO WIKIPEDIA PAGES):

", and Nikolas Kompridis, Canadian philosopher and Research Professor at the Australian Catholic University, who has examined the direction of Habermas and his later theories."

Tjmullally01 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

Typo: Relligious dialogue [sic]

149.150.236.86 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2015

Please add the following link (i.e. after searching the article for communicative rationality) communicative rationality Willtar (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Already done It is already linked in the second sentence of the lede:

"He is perhaps best known for his theories on communicative rationality and the public sphere." Cannolis (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

delete the telos arTicle "ON SOCIAL IDENTITY" from Habermas's 'major works." A Telos hack has littered wikipeida entries with citations to Telso articles

184.189.233.120 (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed. There was no reason given why a journal article would qualify as a major work over other articles; and the link led to the journal rather than the article. -- haminoon (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015

Please update source #3: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/world-thinkers-2014-the-resultsKreuzberger (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Kreuzberger (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

There is a mistake in the paragraph "Religious dialogue", second line: it is said: 'argued against religion seeing it as an "allineating reality"', but it cannot be an "allineating reality", but a "alienating reality" in the Marxist sense of the term!. Thanks!

Igloriagamero (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)