著者

日暮 雅夫

出版者

立命館大学

雑誌

立命館産業社會論集 (ISSN:02882205)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.1, pp.141-154, 2012-06

著者

日暮 雅夫 Masao Higurashi

雑誌

盛岡大学紀要 = The journal of Morioka University (ISSN:02860643)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.21, pp.1-10, 2004-03-30

---

The theory of Jurgen Habermas is now called the discourse theory. Habermas's theory has twin features: on the one hand, it includes very varied fields, that is, social theories, ethics, democratic theries, linguistic theories and so on; on the other hand, it is founded strictly on communicative rationality. In Theorie des kommunikative Handelns (1981), Habermas appropriately presents this concept of new rationality as an alternative to the instrumental-strategic one. In opposition to those positivists who understand rationality just as an instrumental-strategic one, Habermas outlines the project of developing the manifold potential of modernity which contains also communicative rationality. Although Horkheimer and Adorno, who are called members of the first generation of the Frankfurt School, went to a theoretical dead end in the self-critic of reason, Habermas gained control of the fulcrum of social criticism through communicative rationality. From the perspective of Habermas's theoretical self-formation, his presentation of communicative rationality in Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns is a consequence of the "communicative theoretical turn," or "pragmatic turn," which arose under the influence of the hermeneutic controversy with H. -G. Gadamer in the 1960's and through studies of the linguistic philosophies of Austin, Scale and Strawson, Apel's formal-pragmatics, Wittgenstein's theory of speech games in the 1970's, and so on. In the post-metaphysical and post-conventional society which loses the ideal of totality, the theory of communicative action, which coordinates and regulates many interactions, constitutes the center of communicative rationality. In this article I analyze and reconstruct Habermas's theory of the communicative action with reference to Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns as follows. First, I have set the concept of communicative rationality against the instrumental one. Second, I have developed the concept of communicative action in comparison with other action models. Third, I have analyzed how communicative action plays the role of coordinating interactions. Fourth, I have treated the interaction-model-tables which depend on the differences of speech acts. Finally, I have shown the problems of communicative action that are not yet resolved.

著者

日暮 雅夫

出版者

東北哲学会

雑誌

東北哲学会年報 (ISSN:09139354)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.11, pp.1-12, 1995-06-30 (Released:2018-02-28)

著者

日暮 雅夫

出版者

日本ヘーゲル学会

雑誌

ヘーゲル哲学研究 (ISSN:13423703)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1997, no.3, pp.98-103, 1997-08-11 (Released:2010-07-27)

参考文献数

11

著者

日暮 雅夫 Masao Higurashi

雑誌

盛岡大学紀要 = The journal of Morioka University (ISSN:02860643)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.22, pp.49-62, 2005-03-31

---

This article tries to articulate what is embodied by the basic architecture of Habermas's discourse ethics. It goes on to analyze the ground concept and formulation of the discourse ethics that Habermas presents in the 'Chapter 3: Discourse Ethics' in his Moral Consciousness and Communicative Actions, elucidating the features of his formulation of the key concepts in discourse ethics. Habermas raises the point that J. Rawls, E. Tugendhat, K.-O. Apel and related philosophers are those heorists that adopt Kantian approach and have offered a unified interpretation of what they have attempted in his analyses of the conditions for evaluation that are based upon political impartiality and grounded on ascertained arguments. Habermas thinks of Apel's approach, i.e., his theory of discourse ethics as the most promising. This paper quotes several passages from Habermas's work that demonstrate that Habermas's approach has many affinities with Apel's discourse ethics. Their shared orientations are detectable in the fact that they both try to defend the cognitive approach to ethics against Worth Skepticisms and that they answer the questions of how moral order and norms can be founded. However, I would like to point out that gradually Habermas departs from Apel and clearly makes his own view of a discourse theory. He arrives at a conclusion to the effect that the term discourse ethics, itself is inadequate as the representation of his whole discourse theory.

著者

野家 啓一 座小田 豊 直江 清隆 戸島 貴代志 荻原 理 長谷川 公一 原 塑 北村 正晴 村上 祐子 小林 傳司 八木 絵香 日暮 雅夫 山本 啓

出版者

東北大学

雑誌

基盤研究(B)

巻号頁・発行日

2009

---

討議倫理学に基づく科学技術の対話モデルを作るために、科学技術的問題をテーマとする対話を実践し、そこから理論的帰結を引き出す研究を行った。その結果、以下の成果がえられた。1. 高レベル放射性廃棄物の地層処理に関する推進派と反対派の対話では、合意にいたることは困難だが、対話を通じて、理にかなった不一致に至ることは重要性を持つ。2. 推進派専門家と反対派専門家が論争を公開で行った場合、その対話を一般市民が聴いて、めいめい自分の見解を形成することがあり、このことが対話を有意義にする。3. 対話を成功させるためには、信頼や聴く力、共感のような習慣や徳を対話参加者がもつことが重要であり、このような要素を討議倫理学の中に取り込んでいくことが必要である。4. 対話では、価値に対するコミットメントを含む公正さが重要で、追求されるべきであり、それは、価値に対する実質的コミットメントを持たない中立性とは区別される。

著者

日暮 雅夫

出版者

盛岡大学

雑誌

盛岡大学紀要 (ISSN:02860643)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.15, pp.1-10, 1996-03-19