This week we examine the philosophy of the great 20th century German philosopher, social theorist, cultural critic and public intellectual,Jürgen Habermas. We focus on his stirring and hopeful vision of democracy.

Habermas believes that genuine democracy is rooted in the principles of communicative rationality. Though I think it is very much an open question whether rational argument can ever take place in a democracy—especially one like ours that seems very far from what Habermas envisions—I do hold out some hope that we may eventually be able to design a public sphere in which reason regularly wins out over power and propaganda.

“交际理性”这个短语在普通话语中不是经常听到的。这是一个哲学家的术语。事实上，每当我听到这个短语，我就会想到哲学研讨会上发生的事情。在一个理想的哲学研讨会上，你会看到一群通情达理的人围坐在一起，用心倾听彼此，冷静地来回争论，每个人都在试图找到真相。没有自我!没有权力动力学!没有性别偏见!政治通常不是这样的。事实上，大多数哲学研讨会也不是这样。我不认为哈贝马斯想要在哲学研讨会上模拟整个社会。 Still, I don’t think the analogy is completely inapt. And keeping it in mind can help us see what Habermas does have in mind. So with the image of a philosophy seminar sort of in the background, let’s begin by thinking about the nature of a rational conversation, then maybe we can see what that has to do with democracy.

Rational discourse is governed by various norms. Chief among them is the norm that you should only say things that you have good reason to believe. Philosophers tend to think of that norm as fundamental. Habermas might hold that if you violate that norm, you’re not really engaging in rational communicative action at all. Suppose that I’m a shyster, out to deceive and manipulate you. I tell you some BS story. It’s completely false. Plus, I’ve got no reason whatsoever to believe it myself. I’m just trying to pull one over on you. Clearly that makes me a crook, but ask yourself whether that makes me irrational or whether it means I am not communicating with you at all.

答案是，如果我在想象的场景中与你交流，我是在不诚实和操纵。虽然讼诉者可能在某种意义上是完全理性的，但在另一种更重要的意义上是不理性的——至少在哈贝马斯看来不是。哈贝马斯区分了工具理性和交往理性。工具理性是关于调整手段以达到目的。你想要达到某个目标。你相信这样做会是达到这个目标的有效手段。如果你是对的，那么采用这种方式就是工具理性的。因此，即使是一个不诚实且善于操纵的讼师，在这个意义上也可以是理性的。

工具理性不是坏事。事实上，这是一件非常重要的事情。没有它，我们不可能在这个世界上繁荣。但工具理性并不是理性的全部。这当然不足以奠定民主的基础。至少哈贝马斯不这么认为。

这就是沟通理性发挥作用的地方。多想想真实的对话是如何起作用的——不是那些骗人的商人的虚假对话——而是那些试图了解真相的人们之间的对话。Take中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播itself, for example. Conversations that aim at truth have their own internal dynamics. When you make an assertion in that context, not only do you represent what you say as true, you hold yourself responsible for defending what you say, if challenged. And though that may sound a little combative, perhaps, but I am not talking about defending your views with the force of arms, but defending them solely with the force of the better reason! Of course, it’s reasonable to ask, “better” by whose lights? And the answer will be better by our collective lights. This is not to deny that we may sometimes disagree. But when we do disagree, if we are being communicatively rational, we will keep on talking until we manage to work it out.

Now we can see why Habermas wouldn’t count conversations with snake-oil merchants as communicatively rational. They might PARADE as communicatively rational. But that’s just a sham. Snake-oil merchants aren’t committed to truth. They are not committed to defending their views with valid arguments. And they are not content to the force of the better reason settle our disputes.

It would be hard to deny that communicative rationality is a good thing. But it is not obvious what it has to do with democracy, especially not democracy as we find it in the here and now. For Habermas, democracy is this sprawling conversation, in which all citizens are equal participants and all are committed not to the force of arms, or the power of propaganda, but only to the force of the better reason. That can sound like a hopeless fantasy. In the real world, power talks, not reason. But Habermas himself is fully aware of the many ways in which power distorts communication. To him that just means we have work to do, so that we can design a public sphere where reason rather than power does the talking. Only then can genuine democracy thrive.

Of course, whether we can successfully construct a public sphere in which reason rather than power does the talking is very much an open question. But what better place to begin to talk about that open question than here on中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播.