Communicative philosophy

In the early XX century the most famous representative of this school was religious philosopher M. Buber (1878-1965). He is considered the founder of "dialogical personalism" that combined of Existentialism, philosophical anthropology, classical personalism and dialectical theology. Buber’s concept of "dialogical principle" was fundamentally defined in the work "Me and You" (1923). In analyzing interpersonal relationships the philosopher, tried to comprehend duality of the human "Ego", alienation of the individual from the social and natural world and existential guilt of the individual..

M. Buber distinguished between two basic worlds dependently on individual’s attitude to the environment. The first world is based on the "Ego-Non-Ego" relation. There man perceives other people and things around him as impersonal objects. The second world is based on the "Ego- another Ego" relation and builds up non-alienated, spiritual relationships between human beings and their environment. With the allocation of these worlds Buber tries to reveal the specifics of human life.

The world of human relations, according to the philosopher, consists of three spheres of life: 1) physical (Cosmos), which shows the relationship between man and nature, 2) mental (Eros), indicating a connection with others, and 3) poetic (Logos), which provides man’s relation with spiritual essences. All spheres of human life in their integrity form being, comprising man’s existence, a dialogue between people, a dialogue between individual and the world and between individual and God.

The task of philosophy M. Buber saw the task of philosophy in refuting illusions, in revealing man’s own attitude to himself, to other people and to God; in changing lifestyles through identification of the dialogic nature of human existence; in eliminating possible obstacles in generous relations between people.

Yurgen Habermas’ (b.1929) theory of communication devoted to deep interpretation of communication features of modern man is a philosophical conception aimed at reciprocal understanding. In the work "The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity" he exposed that philosophy of practice replaced self-consciousness for productive work. The main decisive moments in the achievement of communicative agreement for Habermas are: a) community of mutual understanding conditioned by the connection to the same knowledge (eins wissen); b) mutual trust to declared intentions; c) correspondence of intentions to the general norms.

The most valuable and relevant in contemporary globalization is Habermas’ statement of dangerous transformation of interpersonal communication to an object or product of management and manipulation by ideas and behavior of people through the mass media. In fact, Y. Habermas emphasizes, just when public communication structure is in the power of the mass media is absorbed by them, this leads to the formation of fragmented and non-critical everyday consciousness; the dominance of "distorted communication" which is the core of human alienation. The alienation that characterizes the distorted communications, said Y. Habermas, is not limited to certain areas of human existence, it becomes fundamental. This is the most radical forms of alienation because it has an area where communication is felt.

Another authoritative researcher of communicative theory K-O.Apel (b.1922) believes that the determining principle under which people can integrate into a "communicative community" is responsibility. "Ethics of responsibility” suggested by Apel is based on the statement of responsibility as a dialogue principle that comes from the fact that people live in the world next to one another and one for another. Great expectations in this regard rely on the new "macroethics" based on self-responsibility.

K-O. Apel like Habermas regards that perfect communication, perfect discourse is that in which everyone who knows how to speak and how to act may participate. Each person can doubt some specific provisions, and no one should be forced.

The incentive that induces Y. Habermas and K.-O.Apel to change paradigm is realization that idealism of "philosophy of consciousness" inherent to Modernity needs to be overcome with a new social and philosophical theory, namely the philosophy of “communicative action”. According to Y. Habermas, modern self-consciousness of human civilization must go beyond the horizon of idealistic "philosophy of consciousness" and instead of individual subject of cognition which is opposed to an independent object to be known, to put a collective entity (community) able to make the object of his reflection whatever it believes worth investigating.

Habermas’ philosophical conception is directed towards revision of the whole culture of Modernity on the foundations of communicative interaction without worshiping tradition or exaggerating the role of reason. The philosophy of "communicative action" is proposed today as the highest authority, which guarantees a unity and mutual understanding in a democratic discourse. Communicative interaction itself is proclaimed as "home of intersubjectivity" or, in the words of J. Habermas, "living world" of man.

Y. Habermas sees the correct way out of the crisis situation in philosophy, in Freud's cultural research that deals with the problem of communication. In these studies the author of "communicative action" sees the cornerstone of a new doctrine − metapsyhology ("metahermeneutics), which will allow social scientists to understand hidden diseases of the social system in general.

Philosophical conceptions of M. Buber, E. Fromm, K.-O. Apel and J. Habermas are based on the principles of dialogic communication, personal responsibility of an individual and the achievement of communicative convention deserve special attention in globalization and integration epoch. In these projects the philosophers try to justify the new foundation of solidarity of people as mandatory conditions of their moral and spiritual life and to find mechanisms to resolve conflicts through human reasoning and true undistorted communication rather than by force.

To summarize all the variety of modern philosophical trends one can see that reality issues have been an abiding concern of philosophers. Such problems fall in the realm of metaphysics. We discussed a number of metaphysical views, including materialism, idealism, pragmatism, phenomenology, existentialism, and linguistic analysis. We suggested that different thinkers sometimes share certain views. However, fundamental differences separate the views sketched.

Despite the diversity of metaphysical views, many metaphysicians agree on some important issues. These points of agreement suggest insights into the self.

First, some metaphysicians agree that something exists outside the individual self. Even the subjective idealism of Berkeley does not deny the physical world, only its independence from mind. Despite Sartre’s stress on self and Husserl’s emphasis on consciousness, these thinkers recognize the distinction between things that lack consciousness, such as chairs, trees, and books, and those that do not, such as humans. We should quickly add, however, that many phenomenologists deplore such a dichotomy. Nonetheless, although the self may be insular, in that it is bound by the sea of its experiences, there are other human “islands”, all joined by the similarity of their conditions and circumstances.

Second, some metaphysicians accept the senses and reason as primary sources of knowledge, as the tools by which the self comes to know things. True, some metaphysicians give reason a primacy that others do not; others emphasize the importance of experience. But these are differences of degree, not of substance. Many agree that by using both reason and senses, we are most likely to know ourselves and our world. At the same time, some pragmatists, existentialists, phenomenologists, and even analysts would not agree, arguing that senses and reason are products of particular conceptual frames, such as empiricism or rationalism.

Finally, various metaphysicians agree that there is an order or meaning in things that the senses and reason can discover. True, materialism may hold that the order is strictly mechanistic; idealism, that it is spiritual or even supernatural; existentialism and phenomenology, that it is being or the purpose that each of us imposes on experience; and analytical philosophy, that it is the symbolic form in which we express things. But some members within each school hold that there is some order. Most important, each of us is part of that order, whatever its nature. To know the self is at least partially to know that order and how we fit into it.

At the same time, there are fundamental differences among these metaphysical outlooks that reflect and reinforce different views of human nature and of self. For the materialist, we are part of the matter that composes the universe and are subject to the same laws. As a result, the self is the product of its experiences, the sum total of everything that has ever happened to it. There is little point in speaking of individual responsibility or personal will, for we cannot help doing what we do. When we speak of mind, we really mean brain; when we refer to mental states, we are really talking about brain states. The purpose of any life is to understand how the parts of the universe, including the self, fit together and work. With such knowledge we can control our environment to some degree and perhaps improve the human condition.

Many linguistic analysts would add that the individual who tries to find personal meaning in religion, art, or politics or in seeking what is morally good wastes time on basically meaningless pursuits. We are most likely to understand ourselves and the world by clarifying the linguistic symbols we use to speak about these things.

For many idealists, in contrast, the individual is part of cosmic mind, spirit, idea, or perhaps life force. In this sense, individuals are alike. But each finds a self-identity in personal understanding. Only the individual can be aware of his or her own experiences. In the last analysis, it is this personal awareness, these ideas that make each of us unique. The purpose of each life is to understand the order at work in the universe. This order is not matter but pure idea; for some it is a divine dimension, God. In understanding this cosmic order or plan, we understand our position in it and thus the self. The pragmatist views the self as neither primarily matter nor primarily idea. Since pragmatists avoid absolutes, they choose to see the self as consisting of many dimensions, including material and ideal. The self is a complex entity consisting of experiences, which include thoughts, feelings, sensations, concepts, attitudes, and goals. Although we are tremendously influenced by environment, we can and do play a formative role in determining the nature of our experiences. Using intelligence and reason, the individual can exercise control over nature. But we shall not find personal meaning and purpose in the cosmos, because it possesses none. For personal meaning we must turn to the consequences of our actions, judging them according to the results they produce.

Existentialism shares pragmatism’s skepticism of absolutistic doctrines. But more than any of the other outlooks, it stresses personal freedom. The self is essentially something in the making that is not finished until the individual dies. The self is whatever we choose to make it. We are ultimately free to think, choose, and act however we wish. Such freedom without guidelines is frightening, often leading to uncertainty, anxiety, and despair. But this, say the existentialists, is the human condition. For many phenomenologists, what we are is that we are. The fundamental self is not its characteristics, properties, or the other objective qualities, but being. The self is not our idea of what we are but the immediate concrete feeling of ourselves. We move furthest from knowledge of the self when we separate self from the rest of reality, as we do when we view it as some object to be studied, quantified, and known. We are closest to the self when we strip from consciousness the experiences that occupy it. Then we realize that the self is what precedes its experiences – that is, pure being. Buddhist thinking generally agrees.

So, although members of different metaphysical schools share some beliefs, they vary in their approach to the issue of self. This variation may leave us affirming or denying the self, and viewing it as essentially rational, divine, mechanical, existential, or nonexistent. These views have dramatically different impacts on the self and its place in the world.

Basic categories and concepts:

Irrationalism is a philosophical position considered something non-rational (will, instinct) as the base of the world; the source of cognition is intuition, sensations.

Philosophy of life is a trend in non-classical philosophy insisting on life (in biological and psychical forms) to be the subject of philosophy.

Voluntarism is a philosophical position that declares will as the basis of the world and opposes it to reason.

Philosophical Anthropology is a philosophical trend referred to the early XX century that represents a synthesis of philosophical, theological and scientific approaches to cognition of man.

Existentialism is a subjectivist theory which regards initial meanings of the essential (temporality, another man or a thing) are derived from the existence (existentia) of man. the investigation and interpretation of human behavior, speech, institutions, etc., as essentially intentional.

Phenomenology is a philosophical method and doctrine based on a priori investigation of the essences or meanings common to the thought of different minds.

Positivism is a philosophical trend insisting that experience is a single source of true knowledge and refutes any cognitive value of philosophical knowledge.

Communication isthe most universal term indicating human intercourse in the world. In Modern philosophy it is mostly used to show the constructive intercourse of personalities, social stratus, nations and ethnoses developed on the basis of mutual tolerance and understanding.

Поиск по сайту: