Habermas's transcendentalism in Knowledge and Human Interests (KHI) deserves to be reappraised for a number of reasons. Prevailing conceptions of strong transcendental arguments, which inform many of his critics, cannot be sustained. The analytic reception of Kant suggests a more modest role for them that is remarkably similar to Habermas's claims for the paradigm of rational reconstruction. Hence a reinterpretation of transcendentalism provides a new basis for establishing a continuity between his early and later work. Habermas's underlying argument structure owes much, albeit unconsciously, to Kant's concept of a regulative idea. Only the "as if" status of regulative ideas allows one to make sense of the metacritical structure of KHI and Habermas's transcendental arguments emerge as deeply hermeneutic in character rather than logical in any formal sense.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alford, C.F.1985. Is Jurgen Habermas's reconstructive science really science ? Theory and Society14:321-40.
2.
Apel, K.O.1980. Towards a transformation of philosophy. Translated by G. Adey and D. Frisby. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
3.
Benhabib, S.1986. Critique, norm and utopia. New York : Columbia University Press.
4.
Bennett, J.1966. Kant's analytic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
—. 1979. Analytic transcendental arguments. In Transcendental arguments and science, edited by P. Bieri, R. P. Horstmann, and L. Kruger, 45-63. Holland: ReideL
6.
Bernstein, R.J.1983. Beyond objectivism and relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.
7.
—. 1985. Habermas and modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
8.
Dews, P.1987. Logics of disintegration. London: Verso.
9.
Geuss, R.1981. The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Giddens, A.1982. Labour and interaction. In Habermas: Critical debates, edited by J. B. Thompson and D. Held, 149-61. London: Macmillan.
11.
Habermas, J.1973. Wahreitstheorien. In Wirklichkeit and Reflexion: Walter Schutz zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by H. Fahrenbach , 211-65. Pfullingen: Neske.
12.
—. 1974. Theory and practice. Translated by J. Viertel. London: Heinemann.
13.
—. 1978a. Knowledge and human interests: A general perspective. Appendix to Knowledge and human interests, 301-17, 2d ed. Translated by J. J. Shapiro. London: Heinemann.
14.
—. 1978b. Knowledge and human interests. 2d ed. Translated by J. J. Shapiro. London: Heinemann.
15.
—. 1979. What is universal pragmatics? In Communication and the evolution of society, 1-68. Translated by T. McCarthy. London: Heinemann.
16.
—. 1982. A reply to my critics. In Habermas: Critical debates, edited by J. B. Thompson and D. Held, 219-83. London: Macmillan.
17.
—. 1987a. The philosophical discourse of modernity. Cambridge: Polity.
18.
—. 1987b. Philosophy as stand-in and interpreter. In After philosophy, edited by K. Baynes, J. Bohman, and T. McCarthy , 296-318. Cambridge: MIT Press.
19.
Hesse, M.B.1982. Science and objectivity. In Habermas: Critical debates, edited by J. B. Thompson and D. Held, 98-115. London: Macmillan.
20.
Ingram, D.1987. Habermas and the dialectic of reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
Kant, I.1953. Prolegmena to any future metaphysics. Translated by P. Lucas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
22.
—. 1958. The critique of pure reason. Translated by N. Kemp-Smith. London: Macmillan.
23.
Keat, R.1981. The politics of social theory: Habermas, Freud and the critique of positivism. Oxford: Blackwell.
24.
Körner, S.1967. The impossibility of transcendental deductions. Monist51:317-31.
25.
—. 1970. Categonal frameworks. Oxford: Blackwell.
26.
—. 1979. On Bennett's analytic transcendental arguments. In Transcendental arguments and science, edited by P. Bieri, R. P. Horstmann, and L. Kruger, 65-70. Holland: Reidel.
27.
Kortian, G.1980. Metacritique: The philosophical argument of Jurgen Habermas . Translated by J. Raffan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Lenhardt, C.K.1972. The rise and fall of transcendental anthropology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences2:231-46.
29.
McCarthy, T.1978. The critical theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge: MIT Press.
30.
Ottman, H.1982. Cognitive interests and self reflection. In Habermas: Critical debates, edited by J. B. Thompson and D. Held, 79-97. London : Macmillan.
31.
Power, M.1988. Buchdahl and Rorty on Kant and the history of philosophy . In Metaphysics and philosophy of science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, edited by R. S. Woolhouse, 265-79. Holland: Kluwer.
32.
Quine, W.V.O.1963. Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view, 20-46. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Rorty, R.1979. Transcendental arguments, self reference and pragmatism . In Transcendental arguments and science, edited by P Bieri, R. P. Horstmann and L. Kruger, 77-103. Dordrecht: Reidel.
35.
—. 1980. Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Oxford: Blackwell.
36.
Shoemaker, S.1963. Self knowledge and self-identity. New York: Ithaca.
37.
Strawson, P.F.1959. Individuals. London: Methuen.
38.
—. 1966. The bounds of sense. London: Methuen.
39.
Vaihinger, H.1935. The philosophy of "as if": A system of the theoretical, practical and religious fictions of mankind. Translated by C. K. Ogden. London: Kegan Paul.
Wellmer, A.1976. Communications and emancipation: Reflection on the linguistic turn in critical theory. In On critical theory, edited by J. O'Neill, 231-63. New York: Seabury.
42.
White, S.K.1988. The recent work of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Whitebrook, J.1979. The problem of nature in Habermas. Telos40:41-69.
