Lexicon of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes Help us establish new Lexicons of Arguments
Psychology - Economics
History - Politics
Law - Social Sciences
Art Theory - Others

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 5 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Body Baudrillard
 
Books on Amazon
Blask I 16
Sexuality/Body/BaudrillardVsFoucault: his theory of sexuality is obsolete: it does not analyze the simulacra.

Baud I
J. Baudrillard
Simulacra and Simulation (Body, in Theory: Histories) Ann Arbor 1994

Baud II
Jean Baudrillard
Der symbolische Tausch und der Tod Berlin 2009


Blask I
Falko Blask
Jean Baudrillard zur Einführung Hamburg 2013
Philosophy Habermas
 
Books on Amazon
Rorty III 142
HabermasVsAdorno/HabermasVsFoucault: their polemic against the Enlightenment turns the back on the social hopes of liberal societies. ---
III 143
Habermas shares with the Marxists the assumption that the true meaning of a philosophical opinion exists in its political implications.

Ha I
J. Habermas
Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988


Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000
Power Baudrillard
 
Books on Amazon
Blask I 17
Power/BaudrillardVsFoucault: Power theory: its object has radically changed: no longer as in Foucault in defined areas like state and prison but everywhere. Baudrillard: Power has mutated into mere signs of itself. Foucault can only talk about the power because it has already disappeared. Baudrillard thesis: Power is only there to hide that it is not there anymore. Power should be affirmed without limit, so that it ultimately turns against itself.

Baud I
J. Baudrillard
Simulacra and Simulation (Body, in Theory: Histories) Ann Arbor 1994

Baud II
Jean Baudrillard
Der symbolische Tausch und der Tod Berlin 2009


Blask I
Falko Blask
Jean Baudrillard zur Einführung Hamburg 2013
Reductionism Baudrillard
 
Books on Amazon
Blask I 79
Reductionism/BaudrillardVsFoucault: a thinking which considers woman as the other of man's, madness as the other of reason, or the savage for the other of the civilized, is for Baudrillard reductionist, it assumes an inadmissible comparability.

Baud I
J. Baudrillard
Simulacra and Simulation (Body, in Theory: Histories) Ann Arbor 1994

Baud II
Jean Baudrillard
Der symbolische Tausch und der Tod Berlin 2009


Blask I
Falko Blask
Jean Baudrillard zur Einführung Hamburg 2013
Ultimate Justification Habermas
 
Books on Amazon
Rorty V 8
Foundation/final justification/RortyVsHabermas: I am distrustful of the remaining fundamentalism, striving for "universality." Habermas celebrates democracy, but he does not justify it. When HabermasVsFoucault raised the accusation of relativism and asked him to expose his "normative standards", Rorty: here I stand on the side of Foucault, who shrugs his shoulders and is silent.
---
V 9
World/Language/RortyVsHabermas: VsClaim, that the world-developing (poetic) power of language (Heidegger, Foucault) must be subordinated to the practice of the inner world.

Ha I
J. Habermas
Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988


Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Foucault, M. Baudrillard Vs Foucault, M.
 
Books on Amazon
I 17
BaudrillardVsFoucault: "Oublier Foucault" (1977). Baudrillard: teilt Foucaults Absage an freudsche und marxistische Theorien von Repression und Befreiung.
BaudrillardVsFoucault: seine Theorie der Sexualität ist veraltet: analysiert nicht die Simulakra. -
BaudrillardVsFoucault: Machttheorie: ihr Gegenstand hat sich radikal verändert: nicht mehr wie bei Foucault in abgesteckten Bereichen wie Staat und Gefängnis sondern überall. Baudrillard: Die Macht ist zu bloßen Zeichen ihrer selbst mutiert. - Foucault kann nur über die Macht sprechen, weil sie bereits verschwunden ist.
I 79
BaudrillardVsFoucault: ein Denken, das die Frau als das Andere des Mannes, den Wahnsinn als das Andere der Vernunft, oder den wilden für das Andere des Zivilisierten hält, ist für Baudrillard Reduktionistisch, es unterstellt eine unzulässige Vergleichbarkeit! BaudrillardVsFoucault: gegen unzulässige Vergleichbarkeit: das Andere der Vernunft gibt es nicht

Baud I
J. Baudrillard
Simulacra and Simulation (Body, in Theory: Histories) Ann Arbor 1994

Baud II
Jean Baudrillard
Der symbolische Tausch und der Tod Berlin 2009
Foucault, M. Habermas Vs Foucault, M.
 
Books on Amazon
I 317
Will to Knowledge/Foucault: intervenes in the constitution of the scientific discourses. He determines the exception of the rules by which true is distinguished from false. (Power). HabermasVsFoucault: the so disguised origin of the concept of power from the metaphysics-critical concept of the will to truth and to knowledge also explains the systematically ambiguous use of the category "power". On the one hand, the innocence of a concept that can be used descriptively, on the other hand, a constitution-theoretical basic concept which only gives analysis its reason-critical meaning.
I 318
HabermasVsFoucault: paradoxical combination of positivist attitude and critical aspirations.
I 320
Foucault Thesis: Power and knowledge formations form an indissoluble unity.
I 321
HabermasVsFoucault: this strong thesis can certainly not be justified with functionalist arguments alone. Form of Thought Proof: HabermasVsFoucault: he would have to prove that specific power strategies implement themselves in relevant scientific strategies of the reification of everyday language experiences, and thus preempt the sense of using theoretical statements about such constituted object areas.
HabermasVsFoucault: he has not taken up this approach later, otherwise he would have noticed that objectivist approaches no longer dominated the field in the human sciences in the seventies. They compete rather with hermeneutical and critical approaches.
I 322
HabermasVsFoucault: his genealogy appears in a confusing double role: on the one hand, the empirical role of an analysis of power technologies, on the one hand, a transcendental role of the same analysis of power technologies that are supposed to explain how scientific discourses are possible at all.  The forced connection of the idealistic notion of transcendental synthesis with empiricist ontology is not a way out of the philosophy of the subject: the concept of power is taken from the philosophy of consciousness itself!
I 323
HabermasVsFoucault: he turns the truth-dependence of power into the power-dependence of truth without further ado! Power becomes subjectless. HabermasVsFoucault: however, nobody escapes the conceptual constraints of the philosophy of the subject solely by performing inverse operations of the basic concepts.
I 324
HabermasVsFoucault: his genealogy turns out to be exactly the presentistic, relativistic and normative cryptographic pseudo-science it does not want to be! It ends in hopeless subjectivism.
I 325
HabermasVsFoucault: 1) involuntary presenteeism 2) unavoidable relativism of a present-oriented analysis which can only consider itself to be a context-dependent practical enterprise. 3) arbitrary partisanship of a criticism that cannot document its normative foundations. (Foucault is circumstantial enough to admit this.
I 326
HabermasVsFoucault: even the radical historicist can explain power technologies and domination practices only in comparison with each other and not every single one as a totality of itself.
I 327
HabermasVsFoucault: caught up in exactly the self-reference he fought: the truth claims are not limited only to the discourses in which they occur.
I 328
 Even the basic assumption of his theory of power is self-referencing; it must also destroy the validity, the basis of of the research inspired by it.
I 330
HabermasVsFoucault: Foucault’s concept of power does not allow such a privileged notion of counter-power (E.g. the workers). Every counter-power already awakens itself in the horizon of power.
I 336
He fights against a naturalistic metaphysics, which reifies a counter-power. HabermasVsFoucault: but therefore he also has to refrain from answering the question of the normative foundations of his criticism.

HabermasVsFoucault: undialectical! Leveling of ambiguous phenomena - (Foucault admits weaknesses in earlier works)

Ha I
J. Habermas
Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988
Foucault, M. Putnam Vs Foucault, M.
 
Books on Amazon
V222
PutnamVsFoucault: he investigates with his relativism never clear examples like: peace is better than war. (Similar to Swift, and for the same reason: both are satirists).

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990
Foucault, M. Rorty Vs Foucault, M.
 
Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
Rorty III 142
HabermasVsAdorno/HabermasVsFoucault: their polemics against enlightenment turns the back on social hopes of liberal societies.
III 143
Habermas shares with the Marxists belief that the true meaning of a philosophical opinion consists in its political implications.
V 8
Foundation/Final Justification/RortyVsHabermas: I distrust the remaining fundamentalism, striving for "universality". Habermas celebrates democracy, but he does not justify it. If HabermasVsFoucault alleges relativism and challenges him to disclose its "normative standards", Rorty: here I stand on the side of Foucault, who shrugs and says nothing.
RortyVsFoucault: distrust him when he projects his desire for private Nietzschean autonomy in the public sphere. In this mood he rejects the democratic institutions.
V 20
Cultures/Rorty: have no axiomatic structures. That they have institutionalized norms, actually means the same as Foucault's thesis that knowledge and power can never be separated. If at a certain time at a certain place you do not believe in certain things, you'll probably have to pay for it.
V 21
RortyVsFoucault: but these standards are not "rules of language" or "criteria of rationality". They have the look of officials and policemen. Whoever disagrees, commits the
Def Cartesian fallacy/Rorty: he sees axioms where nothing but shared habits reign.

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000
Foucault, M. Searle Vs Foucault, M.
 
Books on Amazon:
John R. Searle
I 217
Cognitive theory: here it is claimed that we would have drawn the conclusion, when we look at a tree from one and then know that he has a back. SearleVsCognitive theory: on the contrary, what we do is simply this: we see a tree as a real tree.
The background is not a control system.
SearleVsFoucault: that was the weakness of Foucault's concept of discourse formation (1981). He believed just as Bourdieu that rules are of such phenomena, as we discuss here.
Searle: the rules interpret not themselves, to function they really need a background.

S I
J. R. Searle
Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996

S II
J.R. Searle
Intentionalität Frankfurt 1991

S III
J. R. Searle
Die Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit Hamburg 1997

S IV
J.R. Searle
Ausdruck und Bedeutung Frankfurt 1982

S V
J. R. Searle
Sprechakte Frankfurt 1983
Hermeneutics Foucault Vs Hermeneutics
 
Books on Amazon
Habermas I 325
FoucaultVsHermeneutics: self-reference is to be eliminated, the horizon is to be explained from basic practices. For example, the prohibition of gladiator battles is not to be traced back to the humanitarian influence of Christianity, but to be explained by the dissolution of one power information by the next.
I 326
HabermasVsFoucault: even the radical historian can only explain power technologies and dominance practices in comparison with one another and by no means each one as a totality from itself.

Fouc I
M. Foucault
The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences 1994

Fouc II
Michel Foucault
Archäologie des Wissens Frankfurt/M. 1981

Ha I
J. Habermas
Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988