If someone pulls the “Locke-Habermas” flashcard on you, you’ll probably mutter something along the lines of “critique by the latter of the belief of the former in the compatibility of capitalism and freedom mine’s a pint.” So it’s interesting to note–spin aside–how close the two seem to each other, as well as to certain dead Greeks, when they come to set out a theory of knowledge. I read Knowledge and Human Interests ages ago, thinking (wrongly) that it would impress a phenomenally attractive Indian anthropologist I had met, but I hadn’t seen the Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding until prompted by this Mark Liberman post. Here’s a summary of Habermas with Locke tucked round the back:
|knowledge-constitutive interests||the different sciences||forms of social action||locke|
|Technical: concerned with control and survival||Empirical-analytical sciences||Labour||Physica|
|Practical: seeking mutual understanding within a common tradition||Historical-hermeneutical sciences||Social interaction||Practica|
|Emancipatory: freedom from a dogmatic and controlling past||Socially-critical sciences||Communication via the ideal speech situation||Semeiotike|
The first three columns are nicked from Dermot Lane’s “Habermas and praxis” in Foundations for a Social Theology, via Richard Kearney’s Modern Movements in European Philosophy, but I did actually read the original (in German), and it has to be said that, in terms of clarity, Locke has his nose in front.
- Country and Tristan
I’m terribly sorry: I meant conservative in the sense of a nostalgia for things just past, which does, I think, make
- Lack of “Indian” proverbs explained
A simple (and, of course, erroneous) explanation of the lack of “Indian” proverbs (Shirley L Arora > Language Hat) in Peninsular
- A league and a turd/Legua y mierda
Minsheu’s Pleasant and Delightfull Dialogues: where did he get all that horseshit?
- New translation of Jünger Der Waldgang
With a brief roundup of the First World War.
- European conservatives
Re Mark Liberman’s European Politics 101, I’d have thought that one would describe Derrida and Habermas as conservatives not because of