philosophy after Habermas--and Rawls and....and...
- I have to again praise Thomas Gregersen's blog:
"Political Theory - Habermas and Rawls"
It's a lot of work to do what he's doing, creating a legacy resource on the Web.
When *this* ("my"?) locale began, there were no blogs. The Web log medium might be considered quite superior to the email distribution list.
One might usefully consider Thomas' blog as an answer to the question: What is most notably becoming of political philosophy/theory after Habermas. It's not just political theory/philosophy altogether, but political philosophy/theory in light of their legacy. What's a very good way to characterize that without tying it to individual names? Maybe it's good to tie it to individual names. Inasmuch as it *is* good to do that, one implies the locus of philosophical/theoretical insight in the individuals, rather than a community of discursive inquiry. (One implies the philosophical issue of potential insightfulness as a matter of the individual talent and the inquiry into the conditions of originality for individual talents.)
If one were to locate the progress of political theory/philosophy in a characterization (aptly named, as a result) of the community of inquiry evolving in light of "Habermasian" and "Rawlsian" work, what might that best be? What's the name of that domain of inquiry? Political-Theory/Philosophy-In-Light-Of-Habermas-and-Rawls---is *what*? To appropriately name that would be to provide an anchor for identifying the indicated community of inquiry as something with its own (though inestimably grateful) character.
Habermas is not only a political philosopher. I would argue that he's not *primarily* a political philosopher. So, what would be the correlates to Rawls in other primary dyads or triades that include Habermas, in light of which communities of discursive inquiry could be defined as, say, leading venues of their related academic domains?
Relative to Habermas, this results in a set of primary discursive ventures in different domains of inquiry anchored by Habermas' work. But if the ventures are considered as a set of ventures apart from the anchoring of Habermas' work, they become a network of discourse in which Habermas (and Rawls and others) is (are) primary inquirers, but then *relative* to the newly-defined community of inquiry (rather than the converse). We get a 21st century nexus of discursive inquiry whose character is initially oriented by the network first anchored around Habermas' work. What's a very good way to develop and characterize that multi-domainal nexus of X-numbers leading inquirers?
For the resultant character of discursive inquiry---some name for some character of philosophy itself, I would imagine---what's the best name and characterization of a blog devoted to that? It would have invited participants, like "The Immanent Frame." The Immanent Frame is useful because it's focused on an area of inquiry, not encompassing an entire discipline and not defined by particular leading voices.
What's the nature of philosophy after Habermas and Rawls and.....and....? What's the blog that might best replace *this* "discussion" group?
This group, by the way, was an accident. In the beginning, there was a problem at the Spoons Collective of bringing commentary on current events into a list defined to be about Habermas' work. But the Spoons Collective folded, the end of 2004. I tried to make this list a substitute for the Spoons list, but I haven't really had time to keep this going (as if it was a blog) and never wanted it to be a forum for my own views. I wanted to host a useful resource for persons seriously interested in Habermas and to learn from others, as well as contributing what I could. As time has worn on, the Internet has evolved.
I've often wondered what the sequel to this group might best be. But I've not really tried to figure out alone what that might best be. Perhaps the future of online discursive work is an inestimable set of interlinked Websites and blogs, linking to each other, tracking each other, and evolving periodic sets and eras of inquiry. Perhaps the future of online discourse is destined to be an indefinite array of communities of discussion, and that's a good thing. Perhaps, the best part of it all would be the array of estimations of what it---we---all are basically doing---ventures of self-reflection that feed back into the array, as part of an evolving Internet community of discursive inquiry.
I don't know.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]