your surprise, surprise me. I below communication Section (after Deleuze and Guattari one must always make cuts to produce something that is likely to stutter say the machines ...) have published, resulted from the assumption that our dialogue takes place entirely in a medium that it is not public, but in an always precarious field oscillates between privacy and the public. Also, I thought that that beautiful dialogue that potential private / public parties (4th, 5th, xter) should be made available (where did just my sobriety in the expression of your wonderful metaphors, unfortunately oppose any adequate aesthetic - from the quantitative relationship silent we do .. .). Besides explaining these mails the very Renaming of "versus" in "true". Therefore ... Once more with feeling ...
My criticism of the scheme of functional differentiation is indeed that, especially when it is combined with an evolution erases the historical contingency. The problem is that can not plausibly explain whether a development or differentiation has occurred. Finally, we write from a scientific point of view, to characterize the state as result from ignoring the not the result of a development in itself, but also an unlikely viewing position. That is the description of a differentiated society has absolutely nothing to do with a system differentiation, but is a Startegie the truth that a given state as (but random and improbable) but necessary consequence of a process view of differentiation.
history, it never is. To argue with Foucault: Social differentiation sit hsitorisches a priori for the theory of social differentiation, especially if it is an evolution (ie, a progression - what - where?) states. No, that will not do.
I would however say with Benjamin, that history never write to say, "know it's how it was actually was. '" The connections to the natural sciences sought to undermine the valuable knowledge Luhmann, that everything else had to come. But this Genesis of Historicizing makes a difference with totality. For it is not about the historical genesis of the system, but the "blow out" of the "Now" from the historical continuum. Truth is indeed a code of the science system, but because truth is always involved in power games, it is always an object of political strategies.
The problem of social technology and critical theory is something more complicated than you could describe it. (Notice, please?)
The concern of critical theory yes, the decoupling of the rationality problem was on the usability. That is, it came to design a nichtteleologische conception of rationality (see near, the Horkheimeraufsatz to Kritschen and traditional reason). This means that you can blame all sorts of critical theory, but not a Verwertungbarkeit (which is causing an internal struggles). The reason is so their ban on images of the "truth". Not allowed to specify telos that follows the refusal of usability. Sure, they want a reign of freedom, but that also means to become fei of recovery, to some extent by the telos of freedom from domination.
Whenever you write a telos iht so wants to shoot off the mark KT.
The problem is indeed just around different: Sure there are real no absolute truth, but that does not mean that there could be none. And this does not depend on the degree of differentiation, but its form.
PS: Perhaps it should be mentioned that the KT the prominence of social differentiation so as implausible appear because their own experience is not such a was able to confirm - however it is when then to be understood as an ideal type in Weber's sense, as a background against which describe the inadequacy of the real non-or de-differentiation can.
Oh, would have the science system but separated from the political system.
Literature:
Benjamin, Walter (1940): On the Concept of History / History of Philosophy thesis.
Horkheimer, Max (1937): Traditional and critical theory.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1969): Introduction in: The positivists had to ride in German sociology.
0 comments:
Post a Comment