Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:19:16.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is the Difference that Makes a Difference? Gadamer, Habermas, and Rorty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Richard J. Bernstein
Richard J. Bernstein*
Affiliation:
Haverford College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are many ways to characterize what we are talking about when we speak of modernity and post-modernity. But one description—as it pertains to philosophy—might go something like this. The “core problem” for philosophy in the modern world has been to resolve what Michael Dummett has called the “scandal” of philosophy:—“the scandal caused by philosophy's lack of a systematic methodology.”

Type
Part VII. Recent American and Continental Developments
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 330 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bernstein, Richard J. (1980). “Philosophy in the Conversation of Mankind.” The Review of Metaphysics 33: 745-775.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. (1982). “From Hermeneutios to Praxis.” The Review of Metaphysics 35: 823-845.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. (1968). “La pharmacie de Platon.” Tel Quel 32: 3-48; 33: 18-59. (As reprinted as “Plato's Pharmacy.” In Dissemination, (trans.) Barbara Johnson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Pages 61-171.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. (1940). “Creative Democracy—The Task Before Us.” In The Philosopher of the Common Man. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. Pages 220-228. (As reprinted in Classic American Philosophers. Edited by Max Fisch. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951. Pages 389-394.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. (1977). “Can Analytical Philosophy Be Systematic, and should it be?” In Ist Systematische Philosophie Möglich? : (Heeel-Studien. Beiheft 17.) Edited by Henrich, D.. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann. Pages 305-326. (As reprinted as “Can Analytical Philosophy Be Systematic, and Ought It To Be?” In Truth and Other Enigmas. London: Duckworth, 1978. Pages 437-458.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1963). Le Problème de la conscience historique. Louvain: Institut Superieur de Philosophie, Université Catholique de Louvain. (As reprinted as “The Problem of Historical Consciousness.” In Interpretive Social Science: A Reader. Edited by Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, H., (trans.) Close, J.L.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Pages 103-160.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1965). Wahrheit und Methode. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr. (As reprinted as Truth and Method, (trans.) Barden, G. and Cumming, J.. New York: Seabury Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1972). “Hegels Philosophie und ihre Nachwirkungen bis heute.” Akademiker Information 3: 15-21. (As reprinted as “Hegel's Philosophy and Its Aftereffects until Today.” In Gadamer (1981). Pages 21-37.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1974). “Was ist Praxis? Die Bedingungen gesellschaftlicher Vernunft.” Universitas Heft 11: 1143-1158. (As reprinted as “What is Practice? The Conditions of Social Reason.” In Gadamer (1981). Pages 69-87.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1975). “Hermeneutics and Social Science.” Cultural Hermeneutics 2: 308-316. Pages 122-183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. and Strauss, Leo. (1978). “Correspondence Concerning Wahrheit und Methode.” The Independent Journal of Philosophy 2: 5-12.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1980). “Practical Philosophy as a Model of the Human Sciences.” Research in Phenomenology 9: 74-85.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. (1981). Reason in the Age of Science, (trans.) Lawrence, F.G. . Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. (1970). “Die Hermeneutische Ansatz.” In Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Pages 251-290. (As reprinted as “A Review of Gadamer's Truth and Method.” In Understanding and Social Inquiry. Edited by Dallmayr, Fred R. and McCarthy, Thomas A.. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Pages 335-363.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. (1976a). “Einleitung: Historischer Materialismus und die Entwicklung normativer Strukturen.” In Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt am Main:’ Suhrkamp Verlag. Pages 9-49. (As reprinted as “Historical Materialism and the Development of Normative Structures.” In Habermas (1979). Pages 95-129.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. (1976b). “Was heisst Universalpragmatik.” In Spraohpragmatik und Philosophie. Edited by Apel, Karl-Otto, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Pages 174-273. (As reprinted as “What is universal Pragmatics.” In Habermas (1979). Pages 1-68.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. (1979). Communication and the Evolution of Society. McCarthy, Thomas A. (trans.) Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Two volumes. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
James, William. (1909). A Pluralistic Universe. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (1977). The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. (1978). The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, Mass.:M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Karl, Popper. (1970). “Normal Science and Its Dangers.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, Pages 51-58.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul. (1971). “The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text.” Social Research 38: 529-562. (As reprinted in Interpretive Social Science. Edited by Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, W.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Pages 73-101.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. (1961). “Pragmatism, Categories, and Language.” The Philosophical Review 70: 197-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard (1980). “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 53: 719-738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. (1981). “Nineteenth Century Idealism and Twentieth Century Textualism.” The Monist 64: 155-174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard. (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. (1971). “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” The Review of Metaphysics 25: 3-51. (As reprinted in Interpretive Social Science. Edited by Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, W.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. Pages 25-71.)Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. (1975). Hegel. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar