Man is a rational being, that is to say, endowed with reason. The reason is inseparable from human nature, but this is due more to the subject-object relationship. That's why we try to find the spectrum for the deployment of reason in the social world, where man is to communicate with others. Many philosophers have a reductionist view of the reason for limiting it to the instrumental level, economic, political. This design leads to manipulative rationality which considers man as a means, while it is not only a means but an end. This is why Habermas emerged to walk against not only the philosophies of reflection like that of Descartes, Hegel and others, but also to imperialism Sciences. Considering man in his intersubjective relationship, Habermas argues for a recognition of it living in the social world. Man must be considered in its relationship with others without domination or coercion. And that life must be centered on dialogue, that is to say communication. From this perspective, the communication will aim understanding between different people. With Habermas and the reason is not only transcendental as Kant thought, but also communicative. In this regard Okolo writes, "from Kant, Habermas seems happier, he succeeds where Kant failed: Kant had vainly tried to bring practical reason to pure reason, Habermas manages to bring pure reason to practical reason "[1]. It would be interesting to note that any communication does not necessarily lead to understanding. Therefore, Habermas advocate for a consensus approach, to a rational agreement. Habermas thinks rationality as co-originating sociality. This chapter is divided into two main parts. In the first part, will be discussed to explain some basic concepts of this work. In the second, we show the spectrum for the deployment of reason, that is to say where we will explain the reason communicational occurs. I.1. ELUCIDATION OF SOME CONCEPTS I.1.1 Rationality The reason is inherent in human nature, it is an integral part of human life. Habermas believes that rationality is deployed through the communication activities. That is the reason is the service of communication: that is to say the reason is an important aspect of Habermasian theory. Rationality according to Habermas can lead to manipulation instrumental or communicative agreement. But our author advocates that which leads to the agreement by consensus, "the concept of communicative rationality has connotations that refer ultimately to the central experience of the non-violent force of argumentative discourse that allows for understanding and encourage consensus "[2]. This rationale led to an agreement between the participants motivated to communicate. It is that reason is a tool for two or more subjects in interaction. In other words, the reason is what allows us to arrive in the successful communication activities. This rationality is not the acquisition of knowledge, but it relates more use of knowledge "(...) rationality has less to do with knowledge and knowledge production with the way the subject can speak and apply this knowledge to act "[3]. In short, this reason is considered procedural. For Habermas, rationality is also related to statements. And a statement will be called rational when it comes to a resolution of at least two people able to speak and act. Rationality statements expressed in their ability to be founded and criticized. It is known that this rationality is conditional expressions such as Habermas says, "a statement can not be rational if the speaker meets the conditions necessary to achieve the illocutionary is to agree on something in the world with the least one other participant in the communication "[4]. I.1.2. Communicative and strategic Activity In the Habermasian sense, there are two types of rational activities. The success-oriented activity, and activity directed toward the support and understanding among the various participants. These two types of activities that will be analyzed. The communicative action is characterized by a cooperative research among the participants, that is to say, the speaker acts to establish an interpersonal relationship with other participants. In these kinds of activities, the speaker should be regarded as a partner with whom we are called to an agreement. According to Habermas the concept marks the communicative dimension in the interpretation of a situation in common. In other words, this concept refers to the development of a consensus. [5] The communicative action is that which occurs when the participants give their plans of action from within and not move towards their respective goals only on condition that an agreement so made. [6] is important to know that this understanding between the participants does not admit of compulsion on the contrary it requires a rational adherence of each participant. The objective of this activity is to promote understanding between different stakeholders consensus on them. Moreover, the strategic rational activity is sometimes instrumental in nature, or manipulative. To the extent that an actor is moving towards success, it does not wish to promote understanding, but he wants at all costs to meet its goal. Thus, it can use all possible means, such as coercion, domination, threat, to the satisfaction of his egocentric calculations. In short, communicative action refers to an act whose orientation mutual understanding, by applying the rules known to all concerned. The application of standards that have universal recognition is desired to avoid conflicts of understanding what the speaker wants to express and what the other person understands what is said. I.2. DEPLOYMENT of rationality I.2.1. In the argument Man, being a rational being, looking for ways to justify the consistency of its shares in the company. For this, he uses the argument as discourse helping to admit or to criticize a validity claim raised by himself and his entourage. Despite the ancient tradition that dates back to Aristotle, that formal logic, which consisted of the sequence of proposals for a valid conclusion. It was a good way to convince. Habermas on his side uses a logic of the argument is based on the intrinsic cohesion of the acts by which the arguments are based. In this regard Habermas writes: "the logic of the argument does not apply to systems of logical sequence of semantic units (sentences), but the internal relations between units or non-inferential pragmatic (speech acts) from which to up the arguments "[7]. It is worth noting that the notion of argument is applied by the consensus. The argument is to be considered further by means of reflexive activity oriented to reaching understanding. Also as a form of interaction specifically regulated. The arguments must be considered relevant, compelling under the intrinsic properties and through which we can honor or reject the validity claims. [8] From this perspective, Habermas analyzes the argument as a process, procedure and production. I.2.1.1. Argument as a process The man always trying to win in the discussion can use any kind of argument even if the argument is irrelevant. Therefore a man may use the rhetoric, that is to say, a high-performance language in order to obtain the consent of his interlocutors. On this, Habermas writes, "it is a form of communication unlikely, as tendentiously close ideal conditions" [9]. In this view of things, we understand that the actor or the applicant is doing everything to always support its original position. The concern is that the actor to persuade other participants, it remains in its position, in order to assert his opinions. Moreover, in this respect to consider the argument as a process, we believe that the influence of a high-performance language can act known only to legitimize the arguments his own intentions of an actor. In this case, the actor does not act with intent to cooperate, but that of convincing a universal audience. And he who seeks to cough acts generally acceptable prices of other actors. I.2.1.2. Argument as procedure In considering the argument in this respect, it becomes a way to end the debate. In other words, for players is to complete the debate over the claims raised by a rationally motivated agreement. Each claim must be supported by valid arguments. It is known that it is a standardized form of interaction specifically. That is to say, the proponent and the opponent is in a form of cooperative work, in order to reach the agreement. And to ensure through due to the accuracy or otherwise of the claim supported by one or the other. It is important to use the argument as a procedure, with the sole desire to put an end to all forms of discursive communication. In this sense, the argument admits only one constraint that is the best argument. The applicant and the opponent with reason, seek to find the accuracy of the claim or not high. All this in order to end the debate hypothetical claims to validity raised by one and the other to an agreement motivated by reason. [10] I.2.1.3. Production method of the argument It is about the logic of production of the arguments can influence the adhesion of another participant. In other words, we must produce arguments that will be able to bring other participants to believe in what you say, the arguments must be well founded. The strength of an argument is measured by its ability to justify the act done. It would not surprise us to hear about the logic of the argument, as arguments can be presented in several forms, taking into account the context of the situation. In other words, the arguments depend on, type of argument that a speaker wants to support. The arguments vary from one company to another. For Habermas can not understand the force of an argument that one who knows the workings of that business or the context in which the argument is produced. In this sense, he writes, "we do not understand the fundamental strength of the arguments of a medical, to the extent that we understand the medical enterprise itself" [11]. In our view, we believe we can make a good debate even in our daily lives as if part of the same register of language. The foregoing leaves us say that the politician, educator, philosopher, farmer, the healer, the player, each can be understood that with the people of his ilk, for in each area there are specific words and logic. Only thing to remember in all these categories though, is the cooperative research of the truth. Habermas also criticized Toulmin that does not clearly separate the conventional assumption of a universal claim to validity, two types of claims: that the claim to the gain and the claim to validity. The claim is that the gain in which one fan says of what he likes. According to Habermas's assertion of this kind need not be founded by the arguments, because it has to have only the interest of the producer who wants to fulfill his wishes. For cons, the claim to validity is raised by an expert in this area and is likely to be founded by the arguments. [12] For it is as a few reasons that the speaker makes proposals and must forward arguments that justify the consideration of its proposals. We will distinguish these two types of claims in the following sentence to be analyzed: it certain that the Almighty Mazembe team will reach the final of the African Champions League this year. In this case, if the producer is a fan of crows in Lubumbashi (TP Mazembe players), there is talk of a claim to gain such a statement need not be founded by the arguments. But if this claim is raised by a connoisseur of football, such as a coach, a professional, we will discuss the prognosis can be supported or rejected by the arguments. The refutation or acceptance of the proposal of the offering can only come from just the reason. I.2.2. IN dramaturgical action The man is a being who is still considered a mystery, because everyone knows himself better than others. The man shows to another part of his subjectivity by his acts in the social world with others. This form of social interaction becomes in the words of Habermas, "a meeting where the participants are a public occurs for each other and this to another part of itself" [13]. The man who comes, who wants to show his subjectivity in part to the other plays the role of the actor and others play the role of spectator. With this in mind, we understand that it is a meeting between people, that is to say it is a matter of social interaction. In such an action, gesture, speech, presentation, how to talk have a very important capital. Thus Habermas wrote: "dramaturgical action in the characters of style, aesthetic expression, the formal qualities in general are such a large pea" [14]. In our opinion, even in our daily lives, we understand or we do the idea of someone by his manner of speaking, gesticulating and respond to situations they encounter. The foregoing leaves us say that we can make the idea of someone from what he shows us his way. This shows the great role the reason the actor who gives others an idea of his state of mind inside. In this type of action, interpretation plays a very important, we must use reason for undistorted communication. I.2.3. ACT IN THE REGULATED STANDARDS With the shift in the philosophy advocated by Habermas, we find that man is a being in society where there are laws. Thus, man is called to respect the laws of the society in which it is for the good of living together. The man will now have the difficult task to comply with the prohibitions, standards, non-violence of his company. Raymond Ball thinks that a child can do whatever he can depend only on what he received from his parents. [15] The task of man the more complex will be that of adaptation to society in which he lives. This leads us to say that man is essentially related to its life-world. Man must act in accordance with the standards, to avoid violence language and any kind of violation. It is interesting to understand this structure to act is regulated by recognized standards of all recipients. These standards are not just any, but they are found from a consensus of all concerned. These standards must be legitimized by the participants is that this recognition will base its validity. Thus Habermas writes, "we say that a standard exists or has the social validity (soziale Geltung), if it is recognized as valid (geltig) or legitimate by its recipients" [16]. In our view, a standard is the result of a conventional circle of participants. Standards and to vote, you need a good turnout and a good exercise of reason. Even in our everyday lives, if we always act in accordance with the norms of society to which we belong, the needs of a person will apply to all other members of his community. In other words, all stakeholders of a company will coordinate their actions under the law recognized by all. As a result, their actions will be produced always in the right direction with intersubjectively recognized standards. [17] In short, we say that in this act, intersubjectivity is an important issue. And it is that intersubjectivity is a form of life may cause dissatisfaction, it can sometimes be a barrier to good communication. Hence we need a deployment of the reason many subjects guide action, insofar as intersubjectivity is sometimes difficult to live. I.2.4. IN THE ACT Teleology In this act the actor is here in front of the objective world, that is to say the whole state of things existing. The actor assumes a world that wants to achieve, achieve, transform. It develops the intentions with the emphasis to be things you want. This is the case of an activity from one end previously known. The actor will seek ways that must be met to achieve the intentions, opinions. The completed act may fail or succeed. This leads us to say that rationality is deployed according to intent of the actor as written by our author, "the action may be considered under the aspect of rationality in relation to an end" [18]. That is to say, the actor must look for ways that could allow him to come to the realization of his intentions. The actor must show its rationality by giving what is happening in the world with his wishes and intentions. In our view, we believe that the actor in such an activity must have ontological presuppositions, in the context of the objective world which seek to display such behavior, such an attitude, that discipline in order to achieve a specific goal. All these efforts can only be the result of reason. This is the reason that is the only faculty that helps the player to choose what it takes to achieve its objective. According to Habermas, this form of action is extended to a strategic activity, since the actor is acting in order to cause the appearance of a desired state with the appropriate means in a given context that lead to success, so successful. [19] This allows us to say that the actor must have a background cognitive and the baggage is the reason. And subjects act cooperatively unless their egocentric calculations of utility agrees. CONCLUSION Allow us to conclude here that Habermas speaks of rationality is only procedural. That is to say, rationality in the Habermasian perspective is not the possession of knowledge, but to use it, to an agreement between several subjects. Habermas argues for a reason which provides for the emancipation of man through communication. Recognition of the subjects in action is the result of reason for communicative success. Also, why is the basis for communication, even at the arguments that must advance the participants in the discussion, it understood as a real communication. For a speaker justifies his action, he needs a higher rationality, forming arguments not only effective but also valid. It is worth noting that the argument in Habermas is designed as a process, procedure and mode of production. Finally, why the basis for communication is manifested in the dramatic action, the acting normative and teleological etc.. The dramaturgical action consists of our own inner states of mind that we communicate to others. The normative act is that a player can always act in accordance with the rules recognized by all. The teleological action, the realization of intentions in the objective world. In short, while acting as a form of communication should be based on reason. [1] OKONDA Okolo, "Rationality and rationalities in Jürgen Habermas' philosophical journal in Africa, No. 24.1996. p.6. [2] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome1, Paris, Fayard, p.26-27. [3] Ibid., P. 24. [4] Ibid., P.27. [5] See J. Habermas, Moral and communication, P.149. [6] See ibid., P.148. [7] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, Tome1, p.39. [8] J. Habermas, Texts and Contexts. Test recognition theory, Paris, Cerf, 1994. p.40. [9] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome1, p.41. [10] See ibid. P.41 [11] Ibid., P.48. [12] See ibid., P52. [13] Ibid., P.106. [14] Ibid., P.108 [15] See RAYMOND BALL, Pedagogy of Communication, Paris, PUF., 1971. p.29. [16] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome1, p.104. [17] See J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome2, Paris, Fayard, 1987. p.225. [18] Ibid., P.101. [19] See ibid.
jeudi 2 février 2012
Communicative rationality
Man is a rational being, that is to say, endowed with reason. The reason is inseparable from human nature, but this is due more to the subject-object relationship. That's why we try to find the spectrum for the deployment of reason in the social world, where man is to communicate with others. Many philosophers have a reductionist view of the reason for limiting it to the instrumental level, economic, political. This design leads to manipulative rationality which considers man as a means, while it is not only a means but an end. This is why Habermas emerged to walk against not only the philosophies of reflection like that of Descartes, Hegel and others, but also to imperialism Sciences. Considering man in his intersubjective relationship, Habermas argues for a recognition of it living in the social world. Man must be considered in its relationship with others without domination or coercion. And that life must be centered on dialogue, that is to say communication. From this perspective, the communication will aim understanding between different people. With Habermas and the reason is not only transcendental as Kant thought, but also communicative. In this regard Okolo writes, "from Kant, Habermas seems happier, he succeeds where Kant failed: Kant had vainly tried to bring practical reason to pure reason, Habermas manages to bring pure reason to practical reason "[1]. It would be interesting to note that any communication does not necessarily lead to understanding. Therefore, Habermas advocate for a consensus approach, to a rational agreement. Habermas thinks rationality as co-originating sociality. This chapter is divided into two main parts. In the first part, will be discussed to explain some basic concepts of this work. In the second, we show the spectrum for the deployment of reason, that is to say where we will explain the reason communicational occurs. I.1. ELUCIDATION OF SOME CONCEPTS I.1.1 Rationality The reason is inherent in human nature, it is an integral part of human life. Habermas believes that rationality is deployed through the communication activities. That is the reason is the service of communication: that is to say the reason is an important aspect of Habermasian theory. Rationality according to Habermas can lead to manipulation instrumental or communicative agreement. But our author advocates that which leads to the agreement by consensus, "the concept of communicative rationality has connotations that refer ultimately to the central experience of the non-violent force of argumentative discourse that allows for understanding and encourage consensus "[2]. This rationale led to an agreement between the participants motivated to communicate. It is that reason is a tool for two or more subjects in interaction. In other words, the reason is what allows us to arrive in the successful communication activities. This rationality is not the acquisition of knowledge, but it relates more use of knowledge "(...) rationality has less to do with knowledge and knowledge production with the way the subject can speak and apply this knowledge to act "[3]. In short, this reason is considered procedural. For Habermas, rationality is also related to statements. And a statement will be called rational when it comes to a resolution of at least two people able to speak and act. Rationality statements expressed in their ability to be founded and criticized. It is known that this rationality is conditional expressions such as Habermas says, "a statement can not be rational if the speaker meets the conditions necessary to achieve the illocutionary is to agree on something in the world with the least one other participant in the communication "[4]. I.1.2. Communicative and strategic Activity In the Habermasian sense, there are two types of rational activities. The success-oriented activity, and activity directed toward the support and understanding among the various participants. These two types of activities that will be analyzed. The communicative action is characterized by a cooperative research among the participants, that is to say, the speaker acts to establish an interpersonal relationship with other participants. In these kinds of activities, the speaker should be regarded as a partner with whom we are called to an agreement. According to Habermas the concept marks the communicative dimension in the interpretation of a situation in common. In other words, this concept refers to the development of a consensus. [5] The communicative action is that which occurs when the participants give their plans of action from within and not move towards their respective goals only on condition that an agreement so made. [6] is important to know that this understanding between the participants does not admit of compulsion on the contrary it requires a rational adherence of each participant. The objective of this activity is to promote understanding between different stakeholders consensus on them. Moreover, the strategic rational activity is sometimes instrumental in nature, or manipulative. To the extent that an actor is moving towards success, it does not wish to promote understanding, but he wants at all costs to meet its goal. Thus, it can use all possible means, such as coercion, domination, threat, to the satisfaction of his egocentric calculations. In short, communicative action refers to an act whose orientation mutual understanding, by applying the rules known to all concerned. The application of standards that have universal recognition is desired to avoid conflicts of understanding what the speaker wants to express and what the other person understands what is said. I.2. DEPLOYMENT of rationality I.2.1. In the argument Man, being a rational being, looking for ways to justify the consistency of its shares in the company. For this, he uses the argument as discourse helping to admit or to criticize a validity claim raised by himself and his entourage. Despite the ancient tradition that dates back to Aristotle, that formal logic, which consisted of the sequence of proposals for a valid conclusion. It was a good way to convince. Habermas on his side uses a logic of the argument is based on the intrinsic cohesion of the acts by which the arguments are based. In this regard Habermas writes: "the logic of the argument does not apply to systems of logical sequence of semantic units (sentences), but the internal relations between units or non-inferential pragmatic (speech acts) from which to up the arguments "[7]. It is worth noting that the notion of argument is applied by the consensus. The argument is to be considered further by means of reflexive activity oriented to reaching understanding. Also as a form of interaction specifically regulated. The arguments must be considered relevant, compelling under the intrinsic properties and through which we can honor or reject the validity claims. [8] From this perspective, Habermas analyzes the argument as a process, procedure and production. I.2.1.1. Argument as a process The man always trying to win in the discussion can use any kind of argument even if the argument is irrelevant. Therefore a man may use the rhetoric, that is to say, a high-performance language in order to obtain the consent of his interlocutors. On this, Habermas writes, "it is a form of communication unlikely, as tendentiously close ideal conditions" [9]. In this view of things, we understand that the actor or the applicant is doing everything to always support its original position. The concern is that the actor to persuade other participants, it remains in its position, in order to assert his opinions. Moreover, in this respect to consider the argument as a process, we believe that the influence of a high-performance language can act known only to legitimize the arguments his own intentions of an actor. In this case, the actor does not act with intent to cooperate, but that of convincing a universal audience. And he who seeks to cough acts generally acceptable prices of other actors. I.2.1.2. Argument as procedure In considering the argument in this respect, it becomes a way to end the debate. In other words, for players is to complete the debate over the claims raised by a rationally motivated agreement. Each claim must be supported by valid arguments. It is known that it is a standardized form of interaction specifically. That is to say, the proponent and the opponent is in a form of cooperative work, in order to reach the agreement. And to ensure through due to the accuracy or otherwise of the claim supported by one or the other. It is important to use the argument as a procedure, with the sole desire to put an end to all forms of discursive communication. In this sense, the argument admits only one constraint that is the best argument. The applicant and the opponent with reason, seek to find the accuracy of the claim or not high. All this in order to end the debate hypothetical claims to validity raised by one and the other to an agreement motivated by reason. [10] I.2.1.3. Production method of the argument It is about the logic of production of the arguments can influence the adhesion of another participant. In other words, we must produce arguments that will be able to bring other participants to believe in what you say, the arguments must be well founded. The strength of an argument is measured by its ability to justify the act done. It would not surprise us to hear about the logic of the argument, as arguments can be presented in several forms, taking into account the context of the situation. In other words, the arguments depend on, type of argument that a speaker wants to support. The arguments vary from one company to another. For Habermas can not understand the force of an argument that one who knows the workings of that business or the context in which the argument is produced. In this sense, he writes, "we do not understand the fundamental strength of the arguments of a medical, to the extent that we understand the medical enterprise itself" [11]. In our view, we believe we can make a good debate even in our daily lives as if part of the same register of language. The foregoing leaves us say that the politician, educator, philosopher, farmer, the healer, the player, each can be understood that with the people of his ilk, for in each area there are specific words and logic. Only thing to remember in all these categories though, is the cooperative research of the truth. Habermas also criticized Toulmin that does not clearly separate the conventional assumption of a universal claim to validity, two types of claims: that the claim to the gain and the claim to validity. The claim is that the gain in which one fan says of what he likes. According to Habermas's assertion of this kind need not be founded by the arguments, because it has to have only the interest of the producer who wants to fulfill his wishes. For cons, the claim to validity is raised by an expert in this area and is likely to be founded by the arguments. [12] For it is as a few reasons that the speaker makes proposals and must forward arguments that justify the consideration of its proposals. We will distinguish these two types of claims in the following sentence to be analyzed: it certain that the Almighty Mazembe team will reach the final of the African Champions League this year. In this case, if the producer is a fan of crows in Lubumbashi (TP Mazembe players), there is talk of a claim to gain such a statement need not be founded by the arguments. But if this claim is raised by a connoisseur of football, such as a coach, a professional, we will discuss the prognosis can be supported or rejected by the arguments. The refutation or acceptance of the proposal of the offering can only come from just the reason. I.2.2. IN dramaturgical action The man is a being who is still considered a mystery, because everyone knows himself better than others. The man shows to another part of his subjectivity by his acts in the social world with others. This form of social interaction becomes in the words of Habermas, "a meeting where the participants are a public occurs for each other and this to another part of itself" [13]. The man who comes, who wants to show his subjectivity in part to the other plays the role of the actor and others play the role of spectator. With this in mind, we understand that it is a meeting between people, that is to say it is a matter of social interaction. In such an action, gesture, speech, presentation, how to talk have a very important capital. Thus Habermas wrote: "dramaturgical action in the characters of style, aesthetic expression, the formal qualities in general are such a large pea" [14]. In our opinion, even in our daily lives, we understand or we do the idea of someone by his manner of speaking, gesticulating and respond to situations they encounter. The foregoing leaves us say that we can make the idea of someone from what he shows us his way. This shows the great role the reason the actor who gives others an idea of his state of mind inside. In this type of action, interpretation plays a very important, we must use reason for undistorted communication. I.2.3. ACT IN THE REGULATED STANDARDS With the shift in the philosophy advocated by Habermas, we find that man is a being in society where there are laws. Thus, man is called to respect the laws of the society in which it is for the good of living together. The man will now have the difficult task to comply with the prohibitions, standards, non-violence of his company. Raymond Ball thinks that a child can do whatever he can depend only on what he received from his parents. [15] The task of man the more complex will be that of adaptation to society in which he lives. This leads us to say that man is essentially related to its life-world. Man must act in accordance with the standards, to avoid violence language and any kind of violation. It is interesting to understand this structure to act is regulated by recognized standards of all recipients. These standards are not just any, but they are found from a consensus of all concerned. These standards must be legitimized by the participants is that this recognition will base its validity. Thus Habermas writes, "we say that a standard exists or has the social validity (soziale Geltung), if it is recognized as valid (geltig) or legitimate by its recipients" [16]. In our view, a standard is the result of a conventional circle of participants. Standards and to vote, you need a good turnout and a good exercise of reason. Even in our everyday lives, if we always act in accordance with the norms of society to which we belong, the needs of a person will apply to all other members of his community. In other words, all stakeholders of a company will coordinate their actions under the law recognized by all. As a result, their actions will be produced always in the right direction with intersubjectively recognized standards. [17] In short, we say that in this act, intersubjectivity is an important issue. And it is that intersubjectivity is a form of life may cause dissatisfaction, it can sometimes be a barrier to good communication. Hence we need a deployment of the reason many subjects guide action, insofar as intersubjectivity is sometimes difficult to live. I.2.4. IN THE ACT Teleology In this act the actor is here in front of the objective world, that is to say the whole state of things existing. The actor assumes a world that wants to achieve, achieve, transform. It develops the intentions with the emphasis to be things you want. This is the case of an activity from one end previously known. The actor will seek ways that must be met to achieve the intentions, opinions. The completed act may fail or succeed. This leads us to say that rationality is deployed according to intent of the actor as written by our author, "the action may be considered under the aspect of rationality in relation to an end" [18]. That is to say, the actor must look for ways that could allow him to come to the realization of his intentions. The actor must show its rationality by giving what is happening in the world with his wishes and intentions. In our view, we believe that the actor in such an activity must have ontological presuppositions, in the context of the objective world which seek to display such behavior, such an attitude, that discipline in order to achieve a specific goal. All these efforts can only be the result of reason. This is the reason that is the only faculty that helps the player to choose what it takes to achieve its objective. According to Habermas, this form of action is extended to a strategic activity, since the actor is acting in order to cause the appearance of a desired state with the appropriate means in a given context that lead to success, so successful. [19] This allows us to say that the actor must have a background cognitive and the baggage is the reason. And subjects act cooperatively unless their egocentric calculations of utility agrees. CONCLUSION Allow us to conclude here that Habermas speaks of rationality is only procedural. That is to say, rationality in the Habermasian perspective is not the possession of knowledge, but to use it, to an agreement between several subjects. Habermas argues for a reason which provides for the emancipation of man through communication. Recognition of the subjects in action is the result of reason for communicative success. Also, why is the basis for communication, even at the arguments that must advance the participants in the discussion, it understood as a real communication. For a speaker justifies his action, he needs a higher rationality, forming arguments not only effective but also valid. It is worth noting that the argument in Habermas is designed as a process, procedure and mode of production. Finally, why the basis for communication is manifested in the dramatic action, the acting normative and teleological etc.. The dramaturgical action consists of our own inner states of mind that we communicate to others. The normative act is that a player can always act in accordance with the rules recognized by all. The teleological action, the realization of intentions in the objective world. In short, while acting as a form of communication should be based on reason. [1] OKONDA Okolo, "Rationality and rationalities in Jürgen Habermas' philosophical journal in Africa, No. 24.1996. p.6. [2] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome1, Paris, Fayard, p.26-27. [3] Ibid., P. 24. [4] Ibid., P.27. [5] See J. Habermas, Moral and communication, P.149. [6] See ibid., P.148. [7] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, Tome1, p.39. [8] J. Habermas, Texts and Contexts. Test recognition theory, Paris, Cerf, 1994. p.40. [9] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome1, p.41. [10] See ibid. P.41 [11] Ibid., P.48. [12] See ibid., P52. [13] Ibid., P.106. [14] Ibid., P.108 [15] See RAYMOND BALL, Pedagogy of Communication, Paris, PUF., 1971. p.29. [16] J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome1, p.104. [17] See J. Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, tome2, Paris, Fayard, 1987. p.225. [18] Ibid., P.101. [19] See ibid.
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire