Habermas and Arendt defend two contrasting accounts of discussion. While both accounts acknowledge the importance of knowledge as basis of discussion, Habermas emphasizes the aim of reasoned agreement and Arendt focuses on plural interpretative perspectives. I will explore the tension between the two accounts in order to clarify the phenomenon of discussion. In particular, I want to address the question whether the two accounts are incompatible or, rather, focus on different stages or practices of discussion that can be folded into each other.
Habermas J (1984) Theory of Communicative Action, Volume I: Reason and Rationalization of Society, translated by T McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
9.
HabermasJ (1992) Nachmetaphysisches Denken, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
10.
Habermas J (1993) Justification and Application, translated by C Cronin. Cambridge: MIT Press.
11.
Habermas J (1998) On the Pragmatics of Communication, translated by B Fultner. Cambridge: MIT Press.
12.
Habermas J (2001) On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction, translated by B Fultner. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13.
IngramD (2010) Habermas: Introduction and Analysis, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
14.
JayM (2013) Force Fields: Between Intellectual History and Cultural Critique, New York: Routledge.
15.
Kant E (2006) Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, translated by R Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
VasterlingV (2014) The Hermeneutic Phenomenological Approach to Plurality: Arendt, Habermas, and Gadamer. In: van der HeidenG (ed.) Phenomenological Perspectives on Plurality, Leiden: Brill, pp. 158–174.
