Normative coherence of philosophical discourse

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2019.05.021

Keywords:

philosophical discourse, normative principles of discourse, descriptive norm / law, prescriptive norm / law, ethics of discourse, normative coherence of discourse, discourse as a meta-institutional instance

Abstract

The author of the article assumes that any human activity is normative. In the case of philosophical discourse, the normative ground is its indispensable condition, which makes it possible to compare the foundations of philosophy and other scientific disciplines. The norm (law) has, on the one hand, descriptive content related to the description of the noumenal world, and, on the other, prescriptive content related to the counterfactuality of what ought to be. The author emphasizes that the functional aspect of a norm is that it is a means of socially integrating the behavior of people and social groups into a whole. Due to the requirements and requirements of society, social groups are transformed into standards, models, standards of modal and obligatory behavior of the representatives of these groups, performing the function of motivation, orientation and legitimacy.

In the second part of the article, the author focuses on a narrower understanding of discourse as speech, dialogue, discussions, which presuppose argumentation based on certain principles, rules, rules and regulations. This interpretation of discourse is peculiar to representatives of the ethics of discourse (K.-O. Apel, Y. Habermas, D. Böhler, V. Kulman, G. Gronke, etc.). Within ethics, principles, imperatives, rules, norms and guidelines both normalize the discourse and substantiate this discourse. Adherence to these principles, rules, norms, and guidelines ensures the normative coherence of discourse as the instance of consensus building on the basis of revealing the performative contradiction of the statement. The normative coherence of discourse is also the basis for its functioning as a meta-institution of justification of social (moral, legal) norms and legitimation of institutions of deliberative democracy in a society of communication and dialogical civilization.

Summarizing, the author formulates generalized requirements-guidelines that make it possible to implement the principles, norms and rules of discourse as a meta-institutional instance of society.

Author Biography

Anatoliy Yermolenko

Director of H.S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, NAS of Ukraine, doctor of  sciences in philosophy, professor, Corresponding Member of NAS of Ukraine, Honored scientist of Ukraine

References

Alexy, R. (1978). Eine Theorie des praktischen Diskurses. In: W. Oelmüller (Hrsg.). Normenbegründung – Normendurchsetzung, Materialien zur Normendiskussion (Bd. 2, SS. 22–58). Paderborn: Schöningh.

Apel, K.-O. (1987). Fallibilismus, Konsenstheorie der Wahrheit und Letztbegründung. In: W. von Kuhlmann (Hrsg.). Forum für Philosophie Bad Homburg. Philosophie und Begründung (S. 76). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Apel, K.-O. (1990). Nichtmetaphisische Letztbegründung? In: Nachmetaphisische Philosophie (S. 42). Köln: Opladen.

Böhler, D. (1985). Rekonstruktive Pragmatik. Von der Bewußtseinsphilosophie zur Kommunikationreflexion: Neubegründung der praktischen Wissenschaften und Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Böhler, D. (1994). In dubio contra projectum. Mensch und Natur im Spannungsfeld von Verstehen, Konstruieren, Verantworten. In: Ethik für die Zukunft. Im Diskurs mit Hans Jonas (S. 265). München: Beck.

Böhler, D. (2014). Responsibility for the future from a global perspective / transl., afterword, and notes by A. Yermolenko (p. 52). [In Ukrainian] Kyiv: Stylos. [= Бьолер 2014]

Böhler, D. (2017). Reflections on our environment in the face of external and internal threats / transl. by A. Yermolenko. [In Ukrainian] Philosophical Thought, 2, 54. [= Бьолер 2017]

Dictionary of Foreign Language Words (1974) (p. 470). [In Ukrainian] Kyiv: Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedia Editorial Board. [= Словник 1974]

Fukuyama, F. (2005). The big crash. Human nature and the restoration of social order (p. 157). [In Ukrainian] Kyiv: Tandem. [= Фукуяма 2005]

Habermas, J. (1971). Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In: J. Habermas, N. Luhmann, Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie? (S. 137). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (1973). Legitimationsprobleme im Spätkapitalismus. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (1983). Wahrheitstheorien. In: H. Fahrenbach (Hrsg.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion (S. 214). Pfüllingen: Neske.

Habermas, J. (1984). Uber Moralität und Sittlichkeit – Was macht eine Lebensform «rational»? In: H. Schnädelbach (Hrsg.), Rationalität (S. 219). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, J. (1984). Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Habermas, Y. (1999). Actions, speech acts, speech interactions, and the lifeworld. [In Ukrainian] In: A.M. Yermolenko, Communicative practical philosophy. Textbook (p. 295). Kyiv: Libra. [= Габермас 1999]

Kuhlmann, W. (1985). Reflexive Letztbegründung. Untersuchungen zur Transzendentalpragmatik. Freiburg, München: Alber.

Luhmann, N. (1972). Soziologie der Moral. In: N. von Luhmann (Hrsg.), Theorietechnik und Moral (S. 53). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Norm (1984). In: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (B. 6, S. 906). Basel, Stuttgart: Schwabe.

Opp, K.-D. (1983). Die Entstehung sozialer Normen: Ein Integratuinsversuch sozial., sozialpsycholog. und ökonom. Erklärungen. Tübingen.

Parsons, T. (1949). The structure of social aktion. New York, London.

Wright, G.H. (1994). Von. Sein und Sollen. In: G.H. Wright, Normen, Werte und Handlungen (S. 45). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Downloads

Abstract views: 531

Published

2020-02-27

How to Cite

Yermolenko, A. (2020). Normative coherence of philosophical discourse. Filosofska Dumka, (5), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2019.05.021

Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >>