I only vaguely remember this guy so thanks for the in-depth analysis.
Many philosophers have SAID they are against relativism, and yet, it seems they subtly affirm it all the same. Habermas very much wants to be able to say "Fascism is definitely objectively bad" but independent of his subjectivity can he realistically make such a certain claim using his own philosophy?
If this current liberal order is his, then we may observe that his argument against fascism is indeed flimsy--evidenced by the current political situation trending reactionary.
I agree with your point about wanting to combine relativism with anti-fascism, I think it also goes for many “anti-communists” like Arthur Koestler: They don’t believe in much beyond “I am against fascism/nazi ideology”.
My biggest fear with Habermas is that, despite his brilliance, he is not able to come with any solution, answer or challenge to the current order or the reader. He is a blind alley way.
By the way, this was written for “Liberty Magazine” originally, some months ago, but the magazine was taken down.
It is the philosophy he operates with: It is a weak philosophy. I don’t think it is so much a matter of personal lack of intelligence as it is following the wrong philosophy, that leaves Habermas in a blind alley way.
Sadly, smart people are not always the ones with the answers. If intelligent people are not careful, it is very easy for them to end up with a “mental block”.
To me, philosophy is much like studying clouds. We can make them, seed them, watch them, know what they mean in terms of human behavior (Opps! Looks like rain, better take my umbrella), but we cannot explain why some formations become Cat 3 or Cat 5 hurricanes, or explain why the storms bypass our predicted course or why every house but one is demolished. (Insurance companies are going broke even with caveats such as "Act of God.") Last night I tried to watch TV and all I got was a goofy Kentucky governor pontificating on how dangerous standing water is and what precautions his regime has taken, and what precautions the public should take, to protect human life and property. You might say, he's a strong governor for "caring" and delivering the science, or a weak one for not being able to keep the storms away. It doesn't matter. The storm will either weaken or not, people will either exercise good sense or not, no matter what anyone does. That's not nihilism, that's a fact. There. My bias out of the way.
The problem for philosophy in general is the problem of economics. They both want to be "scientific" but operate on certori paribus: all things being equal. Ancient philosophers, at least, understood people, cultures, I.Q.s, languages/meanings, resources, geography, morality, etc. are not equal.
Now what do we do? Marxists and Fascists, of course, believe people can be made equal, and forced to be virtuous by force of government if that government tells the right-speak noble lies to 1. subdue those who know their lying, 2. exercise independent thought, 3. kill off those who expect equality means they get what everybody else has including a college degree even if they're still stupid but own a piece of government paper that proclaims them a genius. (i.e. reality created by fiat.)
Successful Marxists/Fascists, like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, are much feared and reviled, but their also admired, envied, and emulated when it come to achieving (and keeping) power over whatever resources they control. On the other hand, Capitalists turn into crony capitalists, disregard the downtrodden, and don't seem to give rat's ass about the lies they tell about "equal opportunity", free speech, rights of man, (you know, Enlightenment stuff.) Enter the last gasp of philosophy, the remedy of social democracy, a lie that's easily believed but that can turn deadly on a dime.
The de-Nazification of Germany into a social democracy is no such thing. It is the victory of Marxism over Fascism, but hidden under vocabulary (Christian Democratic Union Party) and fear of national identity .... in smart (but guilty of something or the other) white people. Her approach from 2005-2021 was to create "diversity" (using the term multiculturalism) and prove SHE wasn't a Fascist. No, she was an idiot and created more problems with that philosophy, which naturally, has spawned a reactionary/right-wing response. Eventually ipse dixit, multiculturalism doesn't work, because for all the blather that philosophy has spouted, people haven't gotten better or more moral or kinder, gentler, etc. They've gone over the edge into indecency and lunacy.
From your essay, I would say Habermas is hiding out from philosophic participation in this debacle. What can he say at 90 years old? (Oh, dear, we've been wrong for centuries.) Certainly not offer solutions to the destruction of Germany. Someone might be listening ... like the government. Like all governments listen now with the reality of technological advance. Add to that the continued secularization which leads to alienation which leads to discontent and violence, and Germany (and the EU) is in a pickle of its own philosophic making.
I say that because, in the modern world, there are billions of people who are not modern. They are barbarians with cell phones. Anyone over the age of fifty can tell you. The ONLY way to temporarily exist (because existence is contingent) peacefully with the barbarian nations is to arm your nation and your people for war. Modern gods maybe dead, but barbarian Allah is alive and as nutty as ever --- and they live in your country, next door, demanding all your wealth --- and you're giving it to them. Including your womenfolk. (Oh, crap. Really? Yes, really.) The EU and finally America, is aware of what must be done; people just don't like it. It isn't nice, clean, or modern. Fights for survival never are. Ask Habermas. He's looked at clouds from all sides now
I only vaguely remember this guy so thanks for the in-depth analysis.
Many philosophers have SAID they are against relativism, and yet, it seems they subtly affirm it all the same. Habermas very much wants to be able to say "Fascism is definitely objectively bad" but independent of his subjectivity can he realistically make such a certain claim using his own philosophy?
If this current liberal order is his, then we may observe that his argument against fascism is indeed flimsy--evidenced by the current political situation trending reactionary.
I agree with your point about wanting to combine relativism with anti-fascism, I think it also goes for many “anti-communists” like Arthur Koestler: They don’t believe in much beyond “I am against fascism/nazi ideology”.
My biggest fear with Habermas is that, despite his brilliance, he is not able to come with any solution, answer or challenge to the current order or the reader. He is a blind alley way.
By the way, this was written for “Liberty Magazine” originally, some months ago, but the magazine was taken down.
I think you are too charitable; If he is truly brilliant, then why can't he find a solution?
It is the philosophy he operates with: It is a weak philosophy. I don’t think it is so much a matter of personal lack of intelligence as it is following the wrong philosophy, that leaves Habermas in a blind alley way.
Sadly, smart people are not always the ones with the answers. If intelligent people are not careful, it is very easy for them to end up with a “mental block”.
Intelligence is different from creativity, that I’ll grant.
To me, philosophy is much like studying clouds. We can make them, seed them, watch them, know what they mean in terms of human behavior (Opps! Looks like rain, better take my umbrella), but we cannot explain why some formations become Cat 3 or Cat 5 hurricanes, or explain why the storms bypass our predicted course or why every house but one is demolished. (Insurance companies are going broke even with caveats such as "Act of God.") Last night I tried to watch TV and all I got was a goofy Kentucky governor pontificating on how dangerous standing water is and what precautions his regime has taken, and what precautions the public should take, to protect human life and property. You might say, he's a strong governor for "caring" and delivering the science, or a weak one for not being able to keep the storms away. It doesn't matter. The storm will either weaken or not, people will either exercise good sense or not, no matter what anyone does. That's not nihilism, that's a fact. There. My bias out of the way.
The problem for philosophy in general is the problem of economics. They both want to be "scientific" but operate on certori paribus: all things being equal. Ancient philosophers, at least, understood people, cultures, I.Q.s, languages/meanings, resources, geography, morality, etc. are not equal.
Now what do we do? Marxists and Fascists, of course, believe people can be made equal, and forced to be virtuous by force of government if that government tells the right-speak noble lies to 1. subdue those who know their lying, 2. exercise independent thought, 3. kill off those who expect equality means they get what everybody else has including a college degree even if they're still stupid but own a piece of government paper that proclaims them a genius. (i.e. reality created by fiat.)
Successful Marxists/Fascists, like Hitler, Mao, and Stalin, are much feared and reviled, but their also admired, envied, and emulated when it come to achieving (and keeping) power over whatever resources they control. On the other hand, Capitalists turn into crony capitalists, disregard the downtrodden, and don't seem to give rat's ass about the lies they tell about "equal opportunity", free speech, rights of man, (you know, Enlightenment stuff.) Enter the last gasp of philosophy, the remedy of social democracy, a lie that's easily believed but that can turn deadly on a dime.
The de-Nazification of Germany into a social democracy is no such thing. It is the victory of Marxism over Fascism, but hidden under vocabulary (Christian Democratic Union Party) and fear of national identity .... in smart (but guilty of something or the other) white people. Her approach from 2005-2021 was to create "diversity" (using the term multiculturalism) and prove SHE wasn't a Fascist. No, she was an idiot and created more problems with that philosophy, which naturally, has spawned a reactionary/right-wing response. Eventually ipse dixit, multiculturalism doesn't work, because for all the blather that philosophy has spouted, people haven't gotten better or more moral or kinder, gentler, etc. They've gone over the edge into indecency and lunacy.
From your essay, I would say Habermas is hiding out from philosophic participation in this debacle. What can he say at 90 years old? (Oh, dear, we've been wrong for centuries.) Certainly not offer solutions to the destruction of Germany. Someone might be listening ... like the government. Like all governments listen now with the reality of technological advance. Add to that the continued secularization which leads to alienation which leads to discontent and violence, and Germany (and the EU) is in a pickle of its own philosophic making.
I say that because, in the modern world, there are billions of people who are not modern. They are barbarians with cell phones. Anyone over the age of fifty can tell you. The ONLY way to temporarily exist (because existence is contingent) peacefully with the barbarian nations is to arm your nation and your people for war. Modern gods maybe dead, but barbarian Allah is alive and as nutty as ever --- and they live in your country, next door, demanding all your wealth --- and you're giving it to them. Including your womenfolk. (Oh, crap. Really? Yes, really.) The EU and finally America, is aware of what must be done; people just don't like it. It isn't nice, clean, or modern. Fights for survival never are. Ask Habermas. He's looked at clouds from all sides now