4. Ideology Critical Starting from Habermas with Gadamer debate, where Habermas criticizes Gadamer's hermeneutics while Gadamer criticizes ideology critical belongs to Habermas. Paul Ricoeur rate this is the fundamental attitude of philosophy; Gadamer hermeneutics "submission to the limitations" and ideology critical "irregularities against domination," Ricoeur would not reconcile both perspectives, but he was just trying to show how each can recognize the universality of the others. Four issues that be fundamental difference between Habermasian’s ideology critical and Gadamerian’s philosophical hermeneutics: (1) When Gadamer rehabilitate the concepts of prejudice, tradition and authority by associating these concepts with the front structure …show more content…
If hermeneutic philosophical view tradition as a historical consciousness that enables understanding, ideology critical regard tradition as a source of systematic distortions perpetuate to domination. Ricoeur believes that much of the debate Habermas- Gadamer relies on confusion over the meaning about the idea of tradition. In Time and Narrative, he distinguishes between "traditional", "traditions" and "tradition", with the aim to clarify the different ways us because affected by history. "Traditional" refers to the transmission of past heritage, including the beliefs, practices, and prejudices that affect the creation and interpretation. It contains the struggles of various new creative interpretation about various objects and events in the past. "Traditions" refers to the specific charge of what is inherited from the past, including all linguistic and symbolic elements that can be transmitted. Traditional is a formal concept, while traditions are material concepts about payload of a traditional. We have always been heir of traditions; we are always preceded by the things that have been said to be
“This process of continuous alteration was applied...to every kind of literature or documentation which might hold any political or ideological significance” This refers to the process of changing the past and how the party is able to manipulate the minds of people through this process.
Bentley, Jerry H., and Herbert F. Ziegler. Traditions & Encounters: A Global Persepective on the Past. Ed. Jessica Portz. 5th ed., 2011. 290-295. Print.
Although they may not be aware of it, complex philosophic principles influence the simple actions of the mass’s everyday lives. In fact, long lasting and well defined contentions of basic philosophy concerning the actions of human beings has not only affected individuals, but also entire countries. Some of the greatest nations on Earth have been formed around key thoughts and opinions of several great philosophers. Primarily amongst these, however, or John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom wrote on “The State of Nature”, or the state of absolute freedom. While Locke and Hobbes had vastly different opinions on the natural state of a human being, no matter who you are your life is somehow affected by their philosophic writings.
My thesis, in brief, is that the painful "God is dead" period of history we are presently going through can best be understood as a necessary "transitional period"— the immediate consequence of mankind’s intellectual advance, in the preceding period, viz., the Modern or Age of Reason, beyond the Middle Ages, the Age of Belief. With the apotheosis of the development of the principle of subjectivity in Modern philosophy, i.e., with the attainmeUnprioritized— SDO meetingnt of "absolute knowing," or Reason’s "knowing of the absolute," humanity had outgrown its former manner of relating to substance, the divine: — its eyes opened, it could not go backwards but only forward. From the highest standpoint, it can be said that the movement of history is from the God "outside" to the God "inside"— an inversion process involving three distinct and necessary phases: Premodernity, Modernity, and Postmodernity, to be correlated with Thomas Aquinas, Hegel, and Nietzsche, respectively.
In order to legitimise a regime or cause, traditions may be constructed around historical or mythological events, people or symbols that reinforce the image required to focus people’s conception of the past. People can be encouraged to invent a cohesive view of their shared ‘traditions’ by what could be called cherry picking bits of history.
In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.
In the essay “Cultural Baggage” by Barbara Ehrenreich in The Norton Mix, Ehrenreich claims that she possesses no type of heritage. She goes on to explain that in her life, she never learned any specific cultural values, and that her family has always lived with borrowed traditions. She closes by stating that she is proud of her lack of heritage and believes that the world would be better off without culture. Having no cultural background is a well-developed and agreeable idea because of the number of people who come from mixed and confusing backgrounds, the complexity of a mixed family tree, and the changing times and their effect on traditions.
Bentley, Jerry H., and Herbert F. Ziegler. Traditions & Encounters: A Global Perspective on the past. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
Traditions are important in any family because they help to pass down knowledge, material objects,
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
Historicity refers to that which has been traditionally done, the ‘Armenian way of life,’ – both that which is important and perhaps not as important. Whereas spirituality may refer more to ‘content,’ the important values in life, historicity refers more to the living ‘process,’ how the important values in life are attained.
During the enlightenment era, rebellious scholars called philosophers brought new ideas on how to understand and envision the world from different views. Although, each philosopher had their own minds and ideas, they all wanted to improve society in their own unique ways. Two famous influential philosophers are Francis Bacon and John Locke. Locke who is an empiricism, he emphasizes on natural observations. Descartes being a rationalist focus more on innate reasons. However, when analyze the distinguished difference between both Locke and Descartes, it can be views towards the innate idea concepts, the logic proof god’s existence, and the inductive/deductive methods. This can be best demonstrate using the essays, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”
As Berger says, “the art of the past is being mystified because a privileged minority is striving to invent a history which can retrospectively justify the role of the ruling classes, and such a justification can no longer make sense in modern terms” (157). The upper class mystifies us to stay in control; without being able to see things in our own way, we are being deprived from our right to understanding ourselves and placing ourselves in a role of society.
Westphal, M. (2009). Whose Community? Which Interpretation?: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church. Baker Academic. 107
History and time are considered to be cultural formations since a History cannot be detached from the culture in which it is produced and received. It is through culture that a historical sense is achieved and in fact, each culture experiences History in a different way leading us to the current perception of History as not being one, but many histories depending on the cultural groups involved. Historians have fought throughout the centuries on whether such thing as “objective History” can exist but in the end, even materialist historians will admit that the reality of History is so complicated and contradictory that no single version could possibly represent the truth; consequently different interpretations are inevitable.