The comparison between the burning and stoning of the 1500s to our contemporary society really stood out to me here. Five hundred years ago, people would burn and stone because science is introduced, and today, we still figuratively burn and stone for people not believing in science. In many ways, this reveals how narrow-minded we are today, thinking that saying “scientifically” is like the trump card. It’s no wonder that we have issues of being the authoritative or all-knowing subject because we immediately put ourselves in a god-like position. Revealing Habermas’s idea that literary criticism doesn’t count as a form of philosophical discourse reminds me of how much society relies on science and how we use analysis in the scientific sense to seek answers. In Jacques Barzun’s “The Culture We Deserve,” he explains the term ‘analysis’ as the Greek word meaning “to break down” (11). Analyzing would involve breaking things down into smaller and smaller pieces to the point of specialization and using things like definitions, principles and numbers. In this regard, Barzun mentions “specialization and analysis go together” (11). Whether we think it or not, it seems that everyone acts as an analyst/scientist/specialist today, using science to break things down into smaller pieces and relying on definitions, numbers, and data to prove themselves right. Habermas certainly tries to specialize philosophy by claiming that literary criticism doesn't belong in philosophical discourse and attempts to kick Derrida out of the scene at the same time. It's as if Habermas is aware of how much people favor science as a religion and is willing to use it to prove himself right. Discussing literary criticism and poetry while showing Nietzsche’s quote in 4:13 clearly counters Habermas’s argument that literary criticism cannot be mingled with philosophical discourse. As mentioned in 4:25, it seems that Habermas is willing to say anything to top Derrida, trying to stone him like people did in the 1500s. Of course, Habermas is probably just one example of this. It yet demonstrates how we weaponize science to attack others’ claims regardless if it makes sense or not.
Habermas’s entire argument that “literary criticism” is completely differentiated from and implicitly inferior to scientific/philosophical discourse reminds me of a quote from Lyotard regarding the clash between “objective” scientific/rational discourse and narrative knowledge. Lyotard states: “Science has always been in conflict with narratives. Judged by the yardstick of science, the majority of them prove to be fables. But to the extent that science does not restrict itself to stating useful regularities and seeks the truth, it is obliged to legitimate the rules of its own game. It then produces a discourse of legitimation with respect to its own status, a discourse called philosophy…. Scientific knowledge cannot know and make known that it is the true knowledge without resorting to the other, narrative, kind of knowledge, which from its point of view is no knowledge at all.” (Lyotard, quoted in Fann, This Self We Deserve, pp. 64-65) Science’s paradoxical dependence on narratives, which are considered an unreliable form of knowledge by its own standards, inherently undermines its universal claims of objectivity. Otherwise, why would science need to utilize narrative “to legitimate the rules of its own game”? Within science’s limited position-dependent on philosophical validation through narrative knowledge-could it not then be argued, as this video illustrates, that science and philosophy rely upon literary criticism to function, even though it is considered inadequate according to scientific standards? Perhaps science’s dependency on language has been known from the beginning of Western philosophy, and perhaps this is why the idea of the spoken word, in the specific medium of phonetic language, had to be elevated to contain the same rational potentials of science and mathematics itself. Only by raising it to such a level could the discourse capable of discovering “Truth” then unfold. Another point here that ringed true to me in this video is that we have fallen into a new “dogmatic slumber”-that of science. As scientific fundamentalists, we hold science as our power over others who are ignorant of its ways or are “non-believers” in the same way religion was once used. Of course, people are not literally being stoned to death for disagreeing with science (yet), but if you tell anyone that you question the theory of evolution, for example, they will most likely pass judgment. It has become objective: scientific proof has replaced the Word of God, and man coming from apes has replaced Adam and Eve. Just as was argued by many intellectuals when Europe was under the religious influence of the Church, we now trust in science with the same blind faith that was called into question. Science is now used to protect our ignorance in the same way that we once used the Church; hence: “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Nietzsche @4:36 How many actually comprehend the science which we trust so deeply in? Is science itself the “irrefutable” religion that West has been dreaming of realizing for thousands of years? I’m always reminded of how we once thought the earth was flat; today, this is ridiculous. But could it be that our current understanding of "science", by comparison, is no different than when we once considered the earth to be flat? Lastly, the commentary and quotes on Derrida near the end; I am struck by the quote @ 6:24 from Derrida: “First of all, because I don’t believe that there is a difference between thinking and language. We think in a language, and philosophy is tied to a language. Even the most faithful translation is all the same infinitely distant, infinitely different. And this is very good.” This whole dimension on how language itself-how we conduct thought-influences knowledge is profound. Could it be then that this whole idea of logos, with its rationality and science, can never fulfill its claims of universality, but rather will become understood as “one possible determination amongst others[?]” (Derrida @ 5:05)
As a child, some of my earliest memories are being in my father’s laboratory. Being raised with the idea of science as seeking the truth, then studying molecular biology in college and (briefly) working in the field, the idea that “science” was the path to understanding how life and the universe works was a given. It is clear now how anyone who questions this is pilloried in the public sphere. For example, the claims of “anti-science” frequently leveled against the renowned cultural historian Jacques Barzun because of his lucid observations of scientism- the application of scientific ideas into areas where they have no place. That Derrida could see through this and show how it is linked to our logocentrism and phonocentrism is a testament to his depth of vision. As Lyotard points out, science in the post-modern society is not leading towards any ultimate truth, but creating ever more questions, an endless peeling of the onion-with serious ramifications on how we conceive of knowledge. Against all this open minded questioning, Habermas and his like-minded colleagues function like a powerful clerics in the 1500’s, protecting the dominant view of science/philosophy against any heretics questioning the status quo. It seems that things really don’t change, they just shift their surface appearance.
This really helps me to see that science is the new religion today. Being employed at an organization that is dominated by engineers and scientist. The current trend is to use the scientific method to study “natural systems”, and then use this information to develop predictive models to forecast how a given system may respond or react with given inputs. The proponents of these models make grand claims that the power these models possess, and their ability to predict future events with statistical certainty based on “scientifically” sound work. The models are then often used to develop plans to spend millions of dollars to build infrastructure to try to protect, or enhance, the performance of other infrastructure that was designed and built by using previous models that were inherently flawed. As stated in the video, by making these scientifically based claims (2:10), these people have laid claim to “holding the position of the power of discourse” (1:53). And you don’t even have to go so far as not believing in science (2:35). You only have to question the ability to develop scientific models that accurately evaluate highly complex systems. The accuracy or predictive capability of even the best models can be highly questionable because they try to simplify highly complex systems that often react very differently in “real time”. And even to raise a question of this type to the those who believe in these models, is really like saying you are against God (2:20). As such, you will be labeled a heretic and will be burned at the proverbial stake and isolated (2:40) for doing so. And I have seen first-hand the power grabs that have been made by others using the word “scientifically”, which is used like a club to limit oppositional response from others and maintain their position of power using discourse. I can see from this why Habermas would like to consider philosophy a science (1:05), for in our society. He would then be “holding the position of the power of discourse” and it adds to his authority, and helps him maintain his position as a high priest of the “philosophical sciences”. For Habermas, preserving this power of discourse is key for his maintaining his position at the top of the hierarchy of power in western philosophy.
It is not surprising that Habermas has such a strong opinion about philosophical discourse and literary criticism. Habermas is a representative of the old conservative bureaucracy and anyone who questions this way of life will be met with a proper politicians response, evading the main points and not answering the questions as he did with Derrida’s work. This makes me think about is the power we give medical doctors in the United States. They have the power to decide our medical treatment and rarely are they questioned, because we give science our complete faith, even without guarantee of recovery. The intellectual structure used by doctors is the same structure used in the academic system that Habermas holds onto so dearly. Science is unquestionable regardless of reality.
One need know the answers - to [recognize] utilize that which authority claims it [alone] delineates. or woe be unto thee [these days, as in all] Defeats the purpose of specialized authority, when you can't [and shouldnt] trust it, before you can understand it's process [no less it's incentives] "Trust your mechanic" -Dead Kennedys
Sometimes it seems to me that much of the criticism hurled at Derrida is coming from a defensive tribalistic impulse. Many of those who criticize him don’t appear to have an understanding of his work. In the case of Habermas, who is an authoritative scholar, I’m sure he is better acquainted with Derrida’s work than he leads us to believe. It is just too obvious, that he spent paragraph after paragraph disqualifying Derrida, yet not addressing the major claims of his work regarding logocentrism and phonocentrism. As this video points out, science is the new religion. Habermas’ critique appears to at least partially be coming from a frustration that Derrida’s work “resists “normal” scientific analysis at its core.” (Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 336). In the beginning on the 12th lecture, Habermas attacks straight away and says with an antagonistic tone that Derrida’s (and others’) “discourses unsettle the institutionalized standards of fallibilism; they always allow for a final word, even when the argument is already lost: that the opponent has misunderstood the meaning of the language game and has committed a category mistake in the sorts of responses he has been making.” (Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, 337). Isn’t there a bit of irony that Habermas labels Derrida a literary critic as a way of saying that Derrida himself is the category mistake? That anything he says is invalid as he is not qualified to be in the conversation? For anyone with some neutrality, reading Derrida’s quotes in this video at (4:53), (5:20) and (5:42), show his open mindedness and daring to simply say, there might be another way. Our view is not universal. The Western perspective is not as solid as we have come to believe. But for some, this is like questioning the word of god.
