Habermas states that philosophy cannot itself empower the world, especially in the world of science; he suggests that in a world of science, philosophy should be considered as a fundamental part, he goes on to suggest it ‘could take science, religion, morality, politics or art up against the bar of reason’. (Nielsen, 1993. p.117). in other words, all these factors, if they were introduced to society as part as one, this could be beneficial.
Modern rationality is considered to be incredibly vague and a fabrication of reason, it effects societies systems that are emplace and reduce rationality. A concern of Habermas is that different factors such economic, scientific and governmental will allow society to act upon instrumental rationality. Which mean they’ll begin focusing on what is cost efficient or most efficient and begin to disregard the actual value. However, this may be effective and could potentially achieve a goal but it will not take into consideration the how it will effect individuals. (Habermas, 1970A). Instead of rationality directing the what actions are required for the formal system it seems as though formal systems begin to guide the use of rationality. According to Habermas this is potentially the only negative outcome that resulted from the Enlightenment thinking. Enlightenment was an intellectual movement in the 18th century, they were typically humanist who supported equality and human dignity. Or what Habermas called the ‘project of modernity’ compared to many critical theorists, Habermas saw how constructive results and potentially some ideas that can be claimed from Enlightenment. The positive aspects of the project of modernity, were due to the communicative action or commutative rationality.
Foundation communication describes the knowledge of language and the thinking processes which are required to communicate effectively. This is considered as the ideal speech. An ideal situation for this to occur would be in a public setting. Where conversationalist can openly meet and be able to discuss what they want without anyone around. The speaker should be knowledgeable in the subject that is being deliberated and should be able to counter argue and accept the validity of a strong argument. Both individuals should realise and accept the arguments being presented and valid. Habermas states that the dynamics between consensus, communicative rationality, ideal speech, unconditional truth, speech acts, validity claims and the theme, plan and normative framework of communication, he also stated that normative and rational presuppositions can be sued in the breakdown of argumentative speech. (Habermas, 1990, p. 89).
The existence of the public sphere tends to be closed to those who are incompetent at conversing. the idea speech tends to be shut off. This does not mean that essentially all speaker are incompetent. It is possible for individuals to speak capably within their own spheres. For instance individuals are likely to speak competently or argue about a subject that they are passionate about or trying to obtain satisfaction from. For example, a sportsman who is passionate about the sport he plays is most like to speak competently about the sport there playing currently according to the situation they may be in. these conversationalists are likely to have local conversations with peers with the same knowledge. Haberas did state that when an individual is talking from experience or even have experience in speaking they would be a successful speaker.
Habermas states that pragmatic la language is stemmed from rational mechanisms. . This indicates that they are looked into in individual’s everyday life and to see if they actually work and are prosperous. This is what Habermas meant when he mentioned that communicative actions had an influence on non-foundational universal rationalism with is located within language. This is a fundamental part of Habermas’s work.
Rationality is extremely vital and valuable especially when individuals are conversing. It can practically be assessed through everyone’s conversations. This form of rationality is considered as powerful, it allowed speakers that corroborate, and also those who tell the truth. Communicative rationality allows those who are conversing to contest, defend and revise the truth. This only occurs when bought into a public sphere.’ Habermas provides a useful and insightful theoretical framework for understanding the structural transformation of the public sphere in the modern period.
Of the public sphere in the modern period’. (Susen, 2011, p, 38)
If philosophy were ever to be completely disregarded and torn down, that eventually commutative actions would eventually merge itself into a science. So initially the science would be the foundation ground for their hypothesis. This is known as ‘philosophizing’. Habermas believed that all this science would return to the world. A threat to science would be instrumental rationality due to the objectification of individuals and nature. Which could enable dangerous actions. If the world considered what effects scientific action s would have on an individual or nature, communicative rationality could try and implement science after analysing the effect.
Universal pragmatics is a mechanism in language that leads the communicative rationality. Universal pragmatics allows presupposition to be inherited in language, specifically during conversations that are linked to non-foundational universalism. Different language techniques are interpreted differently, individual’s conversations there tends to be an understanding between the speakers. Within conversation it is very likely individuals will begin to criticise it almost becomes a norm. especially in the conversations that are presented are not considered ideal. Even if the speech is intentionally deceiving a mutual understanding may occur. Habermas explains that the language that is discovered within an ideal speech is therapeutic and rewarding. Universal pragmatics is no more than just an empathises of the rules residing within conversation and values of the community.
Habermas has influenced a large variety of indivdiduals, specifically different areas in humanities. The ideas of democracy and