Habermas

Philip Goldstein pgold at strauss.udel.edu
Mon Aug 8 05:32:00 MDT 1994


	Thank you, Sam Fassbinder, for your interesting defense of
Habermas. I did not understand what you said, though. You said "he
criticizes the a) undeveloped nature of the philosophy of science
that Marx adopted and b) the scientistic direction taken by the social
science philosophies of Marx's posterity.  Habermas's critique of a) is in
KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN INTERESTS; his critique of b) is in THEORY OF
COMMUNICATIVE ACTION." What does the "undeveloped nature" of Marx's
philosophy of science mean? Isn't it that Marx is too much of an engineer
to Habermas, who is preserving the interests of theory in a normative
sense, e.g., autonomous Kantian ideals? What about "the scientistic
direction taken by the social science philosophies of Marx's posterity"?
Habermas talks about praxis philosophy, which he ties to a scientific
Marxism. ITs fault is that, unlike Weber, who recognized the totalitarian
implications of a scientific stance, it is unable to resist false
totalizations because it lacks normative foundations, another Kantian
notion. That's my view of what he means? Are you disagreeing?

Philip Goldstein



     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list