part of a project on Habermas and transnationalism
So, Russia vetoes UN Crimea Resolution. What else is new?
Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador, remarks:
This is a sad and remarkable moment. The truth is that this resolution should not have been controversial. It was grounded in principals that provide the foundation for international stability and law—Article 2 of the U.N. Charter—the prohibition on the use of force to acquire territory and respect for sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of member states. These are principals that Russia agrees with and defends vigorously all around the world—except, it seems, in circumstances that involve Russia.
Like the child whose outbursts can ruin a family gathering, if he isn’t pacified, the world’s enmeshment with the Russian economy (largely via Europe) allows Putin to easily threaten financial markets, risking global recoveries, if his adventurism isn’t tolerated.
U.S./E.U. optioning for diplomacy isn’t a choice; it’s the only feasible response to blackmail. Of course, insistence on the power of diplomacy is also exemplary of the “soft power” approach to leadership that attracts Ukraine to the EU. And around the world, one great appeal of democracy is its devotion to soft power.
part of Habermas and the EU
The M-W Unabridged Dictionary defines ‘solidarity’ as one might expect: “an entire union of interests and responsibilities in a group : community of interests, objectives, or standards.”
This is not a primarily-political notion, to which Habermas confines the term in his Athens lecture (properly, given his context). Indeed, the English dictionary’s exemplar is Joseph Conrad: “...solidarity that knits together innumerable hearts.”
Habermas’ “From Kant’s ‘Ideas’ of Pure Reason to the ‘Idealizing’ Presuppositions of Communicative Action: Reflections on the Detranscendentalized ‘Use of Reason’” might be the only essay by Habermas that’s been published in English three times, thereby signaling its central importance for representing his philosophical position—which is no surprise: The essay relies on conceptual commitments which span his career; and cites essays by him that had seemed fundamental to the development of his thought. The essay is as difficult to work through as anything he’s done.
I would enjoy discussing this essay with anyone who has thought through it entirely. In particular, I’m interested in JH’s discussion of Davidson in a later section of the essay. You can contact me via the Facebook/Habermas Page or e-mail me.
A recent article in Politico extendedly characterizes Obama’s leadership as “realist.” Politico invites expert response, resulting first in a ping-pong by Dennis Ross (counselor to Obama) on realism vs. idealism which he labels “pragmatism.”
This is a happy thing. Firstly, Obama was academically pragmatist, literally. Secondly, I’ve long capsulated my sense of pragmatism as a fruitful balancing of idealist and realist perspectives. But that’s just heuristic. In a phrase, my sense of pragmatism is a progressive realism (overtly begging the question of what is the best sense of ‘progressive’; what is the best sense of ‘realism’?). Yet, it gets complicated:
Habermas and Religion is an anthology of essays from a 2010 conference on this topic with a lengthy “Reply to My Critics” by Habermas at the end. Habermas’s reply is actually a rather systematic address of his views, rather than simply response to the essays.
The area of interest has been long running, both for Habermas and for readers of him, including myself. In a progressive and practical American spirit, I posted two long discussions earlier, one of which links at the end to the other discussion; so, I’ll link here just to the first: “‘Post-secularity’ as just modern humanism.”
This posting presently is basically a placeholder for further work on the topic. At this time, I hear, Habermas is working on an extensive treatise about the evolution of religion. So, I expect that future years will provide occasion to link to more from here.
The fact that there are probably many Earth-like planets in our galaxy is mind boggling.
We’ve been searching for planets merely a few decades. We’ve only had electronic technology for little over a century. What about intelligent life that’s millions of years beyond us? You think they don’t know we’re here?
As a long-time member of S.E.T.I., I’m familiar with the realism of the issue and also the serious speculations about why The Search has only found silence.
In a phrase—cute, but serious—my view is like talking about great sex: 5 year-olds wouldn’t understand, and it would be abusive of an adult to bring up the subject. The Absolute Others (A.O.s, let’s say) are keeping silent until we’ve evolved further.
Why do persons with a personality disorder (e.g., narcissism) need therapy to get beyond it, rather than merely changing their ways in light of empathic critique?
Of course, personalities get invested in ways of perceiving, ways of reading, ways of regarding oneself that gave psychoanalysis its credibility (which infused literary criticism long before Deconstruction). The therapeutic calling can be a critical hermeneutics that requires quiet tact. Those who regard philosophy as therapy get there through experience.
