Philosophy and the Dialectic of Modernity
ABSTRACT: Habermas' social philosophy can now be perceived in its oppositional structures and their symbolic meaning. His repetition of structural opposition finds its expression in the symbolism which pervades The Philosophic Discourse of Modernity in the opposition between the dreaded myth of the Dialectic of Enlightenment and the redemptive fantasy of the path yet to be taken. More significant for the intellectual culture of modernity is the neglect, by erasure on the part of this esteemed philosopher, of the great drama of philosophy in our time. This is the drama occasioned by the dialectical struggle, rushing to climax in the 20th Century, between Enlightenment reason and its Counterenlightenment opponent. The struggle between these philosophical constellations is refracted in the great wars of this century. Thus the drama of the philosophical thought of the century and its historical development is lost. The philosophic discourse of modernity has yet to be written. Its text, once it has been freed from the tenacity of ideological hostilities and their erasures and concealing circumlocutions, will at the same time provide the sought-for foundation for social philosophy and a just society: it is the philosophic framework of Modernity itself which is the foundation of all modern philosophies, in the dialectic of Enlightenment and its Counterenlightenment other.
The social philosophy of Jurgen Habermas, outstanding philosopher and master dialectician of our time, has an immediate appeal to American philosophers, educated in the history of the Protestant migrations to the New World in search of religious freedom; educated also in the Founding Fathers who drew up a constitution for a modern republic heralded by Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence proclaiming the universality of human equality and natural rights; educated as well in the social philosophy of American pragmatism, in which Enlightenment principles of democracy and science become normative social processes.
The appeal of Habermas to American philosophers long acculturated in the Enlightenment tradition is that of a voice speaking for reason and justice; he stands forth philosophically on behalf of "rehabilitating the Enlightenment" in the face of various current modes of thought engaged in its undermining. Habermas has been widely commended for his strong unequivocal stand as a German intellectual against the Nazi movement and the Holocaust it produced, and against any revisionist circumlocutions seeking to obscure those atrocities. Habermas is also commended for his repudiation of Martin Heidegger's complicity with Nazism and his retreat to linguistic mysticism.
In this essay I argue that it is Michel Foucault Cynic parrhesia that is more adept or able to create an atmosphere where we are only forced to ask ourselves to reexamine our political responsibility within our society. In Foucault’s Freedom of Speech given at the University of California he discusses this topic of parrhesia in great length describing what it meant to the Greeks and how they interpreted it using examples from them when used in such little texts. After describing this in detail with examples Foucault later describes that it can lead to more than just that that we can see two forms of parrhesia in Cynic and Socratic the second coming from excerpts in Socrates however it is the Cynic for me that is more interesting and riskier form that can help us understand this further.
...ck on the anchored down Spanish Armada. If it were not for this attack, the Spanish would have regrouped the next day with the other half of their army waiting in the Netherlands. Sir Francis Drake came home a war hero uplifted by a boost of national spirit. His out of the box tactics and his ability to make the English navy come together as one powerful force won the battle in the English channel.
Senick, Gerard J., and Hedblad, Alan. Children’s Literature Review: Excerpts from Reviews, and Commentary on Books for Children and Young People (Volumes 14, 34, 35). Detroit, Michigan: Gale Research, 1995..
John Dewey and Freidrich Hayek both give compelling accounts of what they view as “free” political association. Hayek gives an account of a state where liberal principles are used and freedom is freedom from the coercion of others; while in contrast Dewey gives an account of a society where both liberal and democratic principles are used and where freedom is much more complex. The difference in the views of Hayek and Dewey on what they perceive to be a free society stems from difference’s they have on liberalism and democracy, freedom, and on the way a “free state” is created. Dewey offers a much more compelling view with his argument that liberalism and democracy cannot be separated, his view of freedom being much more diverse, and his rejection of spontaneous order. This allows for greater interpretation and creates a grey, middle ground that Hayek’s view does not.
“Sent by Queen Elizabeth on a mission, the whole country is counting on this war.” “Look, Captain Drake! The Armada is in eyesight!” “Man the cannons, I’ll take the wheel. Today is not the day we die. Pull it together men!” This perhaps is what thoughts were running through Sir Francis Drake’s mind at the point of one of the worst battles fought for his country, the battle between the English and the Spanish Armada. Militarily and economically, England wasn't the world power that they would soon become. A young boy, early interested in the art of navigation and privateering, Francis Drake would grow up to be one of England's most worthy heroes.
Drake inspired many people, especially the English to follow in his footsteps. More people began exploring and some people even circumnavigated the world due to Drake's influence on them. He began an everlasting fight with the Spanish, who later on led to war. Ever since then, the English have had a bitter relationship with the Spanish. Drake's cousin John Hawkins made Drake an officer in a big slave trade to bring blacks to the "New World" for hard labor. While on an expedition, a mutiny led by Thomas Doughty almost broke out, but Francis Drake gave no mercy to the traitor and coward therefore he beheaded him immediately.
“El Draque” or “The Dragon” the Spanish called this English admiral out of fear. Sir Francis Drake was born at Crownsdale, near Tavistock, Devon around the 1540’s. He served, as an apprentice in the Thames Coastal Trade after his father became a preacher at Chatham. He led several expeditions against the Spanish Main as well as an attack against the Spanish city of Cadiz. Drake was the first Englishman to circumnavigate the globe and he helped defeat the Spanish Armada in 1588. He was a successful privateer, a talented navigator and one of the most famous seamen in history.
This picture is one of sir Francis drake ship that he explored in. Sir Francis drake had a lot of goals he wanted to achieve some day. He wanted to take over apart of the Spanish armada but they had 130 ships. He achieved many of his goals. He was born in 1540. Sir Francis drake had siblings joseph drake Edward drake Thomas drake john drake . Sir Francis drake parents are Edmund drake and Mary drake. He was born in united kingdom. Ponce de Leon’s goal was to find the fountain of youth. Sir Frances drake was a French explore. Sir Francis drake goal was to take part of the Spanish territory. HE helped take over English territory. traveled the globe1577- 1580 . When sir Francis drake was on a voyage he ate stuff that spoils first. like fish
Pretty, Francis. n.d. Sir Francis Drake's Famous Voyage Round the World. Hoboken, N.J.: BiblioBytes, n.d. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 23, 2014).
Sir Francis Drake is known for England's defeat of the Spanish Armada. He was a sea dog and he sailed around the world. Drake was actually the first one to sail around the world since Magellan died in his journey.
By the late eighteenth century, the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason as it was called had begun to rapidly spread across Europe. People began believing in the ideals of popular government, the centrality of economics to politics, secularism, and progress. This cultural movement was sparked by intellectuals and commonwealth thinkers such as the influential writer John Locke and the famous scientist Isaac Newton, both who emphasized the fact that man, by the use of reason, would be able to solve all of his problems-whether it be problems with the government, morals or the society. However, these ideals weren’t just limited to the European nations where they had first begun. On the other side of the world, off in the United States, American intellectuals began to reason with these ideas as well. As a result, the influence on the profound of modern economic and political thought had a huge impact on the United States, resulting in one of the most important documents in known in American history; the Constitution.
In order to understand how these influences or principles have spread, it must also be figured out how these principles developed. Again here, it must be asserted that the historical context is of vital importance because it reveals the manner in which some actions that took place at particular points in time had formed consensus notions. It is these notions that were carried through and developed into what have become western democratic principles. These had evidently developed with the passage of time due to the occurrences that took place on the American continent; the types of people that landed there were responsible for the influences they had in the formulation of law. Though other western countries experienced similar transition America is one country that must be particularly mentioned (Kagan et al, 2000).
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.
In The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis makes a cohesive argument concerning about the debate over the objectivity of truth by stating “objectivity as a consequence is hardly possible, and that there is, therefore, no such thing as truth (Gaddis 29). The question for objective history has long been debated by numerous historians, and the differing viewpoints of history have led to a transition in our ways of thinking in the modern world. Ultimately, the question that this paper focuses on is: to what extent is history objective? Along with this, the relation to historical consciousness and the challenges of living in modernity will also be assessed. This paper will analyze the texts of John Lewis Gaddis, Nietzsche and the Birth of Tragedy, Modernity and Historical Vision, Living in Modernity, and Hermeneutics. Finally, the paper will argue that history is not largely objective, and is fundamentally shaped through the historian’s subjectivity.
John Locke’s social contract theory applies to all types of societies in any time era. Although, Jean-Jacques Rousseau did write during the Renaissance era, his philosophy limits itself to fix the problem of an absolute monarchy and fails to resolve other types of societies. These philosophers have such profound impacts on modern day societies. For example, the United States’ general will is codified in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, meanwhile individual rights are distinguished in the Declaration of