The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1 7.9分
读书笔记 Habermas' Discourse Theory-SEP


conceiving 【cooperation】 in relation to validity claims......a theory of argumentation or discourse......the "reflective form of communicative action"

The multi-dimensional system of validity claims

to ground the multi-dimensional system of validity claims, one must supplement semantic analysis with a pragmatic analysis of the different sorts of argumentative discourse—the different “logics of argumentation”—through which each type can be intersubjectively justified

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The discursive analysis of validity

1). the general structures of argumentation, formal pragmatics (规范语用学), the pragmatic analysis of argumentation

-- assumption: 语用决定用语

the specific type of validity claim one aims to justify—the cognitive goal or topic of argumentation— determines the specific argumentative practices appropriate for such justification.

-- aim: 找出共用的话语结构

reconstruct the normative presuppositions that structure the discourse of competent must adopt the performative attitude of a participant and articulate the shared, though often tacit, ideals and rules that provide the basis for regarding some arguments as better than others.

【问题:话语结构和aspects of communicative action有什么区别?话语结构分析指涉的是否就是strong communicative action三要素里的social appropriateness?答:不是,这种话语结构分析(逻辑,辩证,修辞)是涵盖于三种claim中的】

-- method: 不能光靠逻辑找

three aspects of argument-making practices......argument 【as product, as procedure, and as process】......loosely aligns with the traditional perspectives on argument evaluation of 【logic, dialectic, and rhetoric】

2). pragmatic idea of cogency

-- logical level

arguments as......sets of reasons that support conclusions......most if not all argumentation as ultimately resting on ampliative arguments whose conclusions do not follow with deductive certainty but only as more or less plausible or probable......The logical strength of such arguments deopends on how well one has taken into account all the relevant information and possible objections. .....resists complete formalization: induction, analogy, narrative, and so on.

-- dialectical level

a ritualized competition for the better arguments......the dialectical obligations of discussants: that one should address the issue at hand, should respond to relevant challengs, meet the specified burden of proof, and so on.

-- rhetorical level

highly idealized properties of communication......the conditions of an ideal speech situation......understands the idea of rhetorically adequate process as a set of unavoidable yet counterfactual "pragmatic presuppositions" that participants must make if they are to regard the actual execution of dialectical procedures as a sufficiently severe critical test

four most important presuppositions:

(i). no one capable of making a relevant contribution has been excluded
(ii). participants have equal voice
(iii). they are internally free to speak thier honest opinon without deception or self-deception
(iv). there are no sources of coercion built into the process and procedures of discourse


2). The differentiation of argumentative discourses

a. sincerity claims

interior subjectivity: feelings, moods, desires, beliefs, and the like......rational assessment, not in discourse but by comparison with the actor's behavior

b+c: truth and rightness claims

argumentative justification......strict disourses......the types of reasons differed--moral discourse rested primarily on need interpretations, empirical-theoretical discourse on empirical inductions......

-- ideal consensus

the appropriate audience for the testing of claims is universal, and in making a truth or rightness claim one counterfactually presupposes that a universal consensus would result, were the participants able to pursue a sufficiently inclusive and reasonable discouse for a sufficient length of time

d: autheticity claims

......ethical discourses focus on questions of the good life, either for a given individual ("ethical-existential" discourse) or for a particular group or polity ("ethical-political" discourse)......the kind of reasons that constitute cogent arguments in ethical discourse depend on the life histories, traditions, and particular values of those whose good is at issue



Harbermasian discourse theory

......aligns different types of validity claims with different types of justificatory discourse

how differentiated types of discourse interrelate

......moral and ethical discourse partly depend on empirical claims......question of interrelationship becomes especially urgen in the political sphere, where different discourses intertwine and lead to competing conclusions, or when issues arise in which discourse types cannot be cleanly separated, so that the standards of cogency become obscure or deeply contested......democratic theory
《The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1》的全部笔记 5篇
免费下载 iOS / Android 版客户端