<scp>Antisecularism</scp> - Jürgen Habermas, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion (Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 2005).

Joas, Hans; Skinner, Alex

doi:10.1017/s0003975609000204

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, the latter keep up disagreement in a competitive scenario, too. To illustrate the kind of debate, consider the historical development of sociological theory from the middle to the end of the 20th century as it is extensively developed in Joas and Knöbl (2004).…”

Section: Model Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy and the pursuit of truth

Merdes

2018

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science is a social epistemic enterprise. The complexity of research requires the division of cognitive labor. As a consequence, scientists have to present results and incorporate the results of others into their body of knowledge. This creates the possibility of strategic behavior, leading to phenomena such as publication bias. To analyze the dynamics of strategic behavior in epistemic communities, agent-based modeling suggests itself as a method. The phenomena generated by the developed agent-based simulation model reveal a diverse set of possible dynamics in strategically heterogeneous groups and support the claim that there is a trade-off between a behavioral rule's efficacy to generate accurate beliefs under optimal conditions and its robustness to variation in the composition of the epistemic environment.

show abstract

Section: Model Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy and the pursuit of truth

Merdes

2018

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So far, we have argued that securitisation triggers potentially far-reaching institutional consequences, which may add up to a state of emergency where the conduct of public life is subordinated to a defence against existential threats. Institutional consequences are thus the result of performative acts that can be understood as a form of 'creative action': social action that aims at solving problems where routinised patterns of interpretation no longer seem to fit (Joas 1996). In particular, framing an issue in security terms entails the pressure to accelerate the decision-making process so that securitising moves might add to the impression that normal procedures have become inappropriate.…”

Section: A Securitising Community -Theorising 'The West'mentioning

confidence: 99%

The West: a securitising community?

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this article is to theorise transformations of Western order in a manner that does not presuppose a fixed understanding of 'the West' as a preconstituted political space, ready-made and waiting for social scientific enquiry. We argue that the Copenhagen School's understanding of securitisation dynamics provides an adequate methodological starting point for such an endeavour. Rather than taking for granted the existence of a Western 'security community', we thus focus on the performative effects of a security semantics in which 'the West' figures as the threatened, yet notoriously vague referent object that has to be defended against alleged challenges. The empirical part of the article reconstructs such securitisation dynamics in three different fields: the implications of representing China's rise as a challenge to Western order, the effects of the transformation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) towards a global security actor, and the consequences of extraordinary renditions and practices of torture for the normative infrastructure of 'the West'. We conclude that Western securitisation dynamics can be understood as a discursive shift away from a legally enshrined culture of restraint and towards more assertive forms of self-authorisation.

show abstract

“…The theory of signs in question here is Charles Sanders Peirce's threefold semiotic version as distinct from the twofold structuralist (or semiological) version of Ferdinand de Saussure and his followers. On Peirce, see, for example, Karl-Otto Apel (1981), and on the distinction between semiotic and structuralist theories, see, for example, Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1982) and Hans Joas (1992). In addition to intersubjectivity, Luhmann (1995: 146-7) also rejects a theory of signs as irrelevant for understanding communication, but what he has in mind is Jacques Derrida's semiology.…”

Section: Department Of Sociology University College Cork Cork Irelandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersubjectivity – interactionist or discursive? Reflections on Habermas’ critique of Brandom

Strydom

2006

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that there is a marked ambivalence in Habermas' concept of intersubjectivity in that he wavers between an interactionist and a discursive understanding. This ambivalence is demonstrated with reference to his recent critique of Robert Brandom's normative pragmatic theory of discursive practice. Although Habermas is a leading theorist of discourse as an epistemically steered process, he allows his interpretation of Brandom's theory as suffering from objective idealism to compel him to recoil from discourse and to defend a purely interactionist or dialogical position. It is argued that the ambivalence in question is related to Habermas' incomplete theorization of communication as a process of structure formation that unfolds sequentially through time on different levels. His architectonic of communicative intersubjectivity is marred by a missing concept. His characteristic concept of coordination is insufficient and must be complemented by a concept of synthesis at the discursive level.

show abstract

Antisecularism - Jürgen Habermas, Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion (Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 2005).

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Strategy and the pursuit of truth

Strategy and the pursuit of truth

The West: a securitising community?

Intersubjectivity – interactionist or discursive? Reflections on Habermas’ critique of Brandom

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About