/lit/ - Literature

>stop talking white cis male!

>>10349771
Habermas is a good and methodically honest philosopher, however, his conclusions are ultimateliy very boring.

>>10349793
Came here to post this. Run-off the mill liberal philosopher taught in every German university's introductory course.

Can't get more boring than that.

>is his extremely dense masterwork that synthesizes Talcott Parsons, Marx, Weber, and Karl Otto Apel a good place to start
no
no it is not
start with "On the Pragmatics of Communication", "Truth and Justification", "The Inclusion of the Other", "Between Naturalism and Religion", and "Philosophical Discourse of Modernity"
absolutely all of his writings presuppose you are familiar with the thinkers he's discussing and he uses the vocabularies of several different thinkers on a regular basis, even in writings with which doesn't mention them.
Many of the other terms he also uses are peculiar german terms. "Neoconservative" for example has literally nothing to do with american politics, but postmodernists who support the fracturing of culture in late capitalism and attempt to legitimize the irrational

he is without a doubt a philosopher's philosopher and requires more pre-reading than potentially any living thinker

>Frankfurt School

Jürgen Habermas - jew
Herbert Marcuse - jew
Theodor Adorno - half jew
Max Horkheimer - jew
Walter Benjamin - jew
Erich Fromm - half jew
Friedrich Pollock - jew
Leo Löwenthal - jew
Siegfried Kracauer - jew
Otto Kirchheimer - jew

>>10349840
i know... i want to read tanakh scholarship

It's a good place to start with Habermas. His Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere is the other big famous thing everyone thinks of when they think "Habermas" (actually, they usually just think of his argument about Paris cafes, specifically).

Habermas is a good person to read because he's the most milquetoast version of every 19th-20th century continental-philosophical crisis. He takes critical theory, hermeneutics and phenomenology, and the epistemological crisis of the human sciences, and produces "communicative rationality" out of it. It's like making a stew out of a dozen things, that all just taste like "stew" at the end of the day.

This kind of immanent, merely syncretic philosophical "unity" approach to post-modernity is one of the major valid options, one of the major elegant suggestions of what we're supposed to do with all this shit. It has to be answered, and Habermas is the paradigmatic case of it. Though I think if you end up as a true "Habermasian" in the end, you end up a kind of jack of all trades, master of none. Too liberal to be Marxist or critical, too liberal to push the hermeneutic and phenomenological programs into their weirder zones. It's just "OK"

>>10349822
This. To "simplify" things:

Greeks
Bible
Continental philosophy: Kant, Hegel, Heidegger
Classical sociology: Marx, Dilthey, Durkheim, G.H. Mead, Weber, Simmel, Talcott Parsons
Pragmatism: Peirce, Dewey
Analytic philosophy: Wittgenstein, J.L. Austin
Psychology: Freud, Jean Piaget
Critical theory: Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Apel

Also I'd read The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere as the first Habermas.

>>10349848
Jewish Study Bible

>>10349822
This too. Habermas is not writing sui generis existential philosophy, he's synthesising everything that's available as his way of addressing the overall crisis of modernity.

If you aren't familiar with the things he's bringing in you will probably have a bad time.

>>10349771
>I never see Habermas mentioned.
Because he created the monster called Hans Herman Hoppe.

>>10349868

>>10349865
What does constitute the crisis of modernity, as Habermas understands it? The breakdown of communication and critical debate?