• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.117
• /
• pp.137-160
• /
• 2011

This article aims to elucidate the meaning of Conservativeness and Progress through the hermeneutical discussion about Tradition and Ideology. This study is concerned with Contemporary Hermeneutics, especially H.G. Gadamer, J. Habermas, and P. Ricoeur's Hermeneutics. We will find conservative aspects of Gadamer's Hermeneutics and progressive aspects of Habermas's Hermeneutics through debate on Hermeneutics between Gadamer and Habermas. And we will deal with the meaning of the concept of Conservativeness and Progress in context of Hermeneutics. Then, we will find the difference and common feature, the uppermost limits between Gadamer and Habermas's Hermeneutics in terms of Ricoeur's view. In this context, we will lastly pursue a way of solution about problem of Idea, that is Conservativeness vs Progress through hermeneutical Synthesis.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.295-327
• /
• 2002

Deliberative democracy places its great importance on the theory that the citizens should fill the role of conducting the principles of democratic society. This is divided into two main theoretical trends in modern political theories, a liberal theory advocated by J. Rawls and a critical one emphasized by J. Habermas. Mutual understanding between two scholars focuses on the responsibility of citizens; citizens should be the reflective persons who can accept the terms of just communication going beyond the preference of individual belief. It is not denied that the discussions of deliberative democracy guided by both Rawls and Habermas do not place emphasis upon mass media. Even though they seldom regard the argument how the current media can be a essential factor in encouraging deliberative democracy, they never close the eyes to the significance of communication. Rawls stresses the political freedom of speech as the very condition which leads to the citizens' autonomous participation in politics, while Habermas places his hope on the role of mass media that would amplify the citizens' will gushed out in public sphere.

• The Journal of the Convergence on Culture Technology
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.446-453
• /
• 2021

This paper deals with two methods regarding fact and value. One is the method of H. Putnam, which is to break the boundary between fact and value and to make a world where the two have an inherent connection. The other is the method of J. Habermas, which regards fact and value as the product of an intersubjective agreement based on argumentation. Putnam, through his position of internal realism, moves from realism to pragmatism, especially by combining the rationalist tradition of Kant and Dewey's pragmatic views. Habermas also stands in the tradition of rationalism and universalism in Kant, at the same time emphasizing the practicability of truth in Hegel's tradition of historical reason. The significance of the strategy of Putnam and Habermas is that they have attempted to revive the realm of value against the strict dichotomy of facts and values and the subsequent devaluation of rationality in the realm of value. The starting point of this attempt is that the practical foundation of rationality is laid on life and practice. This could provide the room for escaping from rationality, which prioritizes only truths that reveal facts, that is, instrument-reduced rationality, the room for the revival of practical rationality through reflection on what is the purpose of life, and, in turn, the room for resisting to pass the realm of values and norms to the logic of habitual routines or customs. However, despite such common goal, there are clear limitations to Putnam's approach due to the differences in the strategies taken on facts and values. Putnam's method can demolish the whole universal framework that is the foundation where pragmatic pluralism will be fostered, eliminating the difference between the specificity of values and the universality of norms and shaking up the status of universal ethics. Therefore, Habermas' ethical theory is proposed as an alternative to establish a basis for universal ethics by relying on communication rationality and to secure the coercion of norms and blossom cultural pluralism as a diverse lifestyle based on this coercion.

• Informatization Policy
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.37-64
• /
• 2018

This study aims to forecast the future of the Korean society via a big data analysis. Based upon two sets of database - a collection of 46,000,000 news on 127 media in Naver Portal operated by Naver Corporation and a collection of 70,000 academic papers of social sciences registered in KCI (Korea Citation Index of National Research Foundation) between 2005-2017, 40 most frequently occurring keywords were selected. Next, their temporal variations were traced and compared in terms of number and pattern of frequencies. In addition, core issues of the future were identified through keyword network analysis. In the case of the media news database, such issues as economy, polity or technology turned out to be the top ranked ones. As to the academic paper database, however, top ranking issues are those of feeling, working or living. Referring to the system and life-world conceptual framework suggested by $J{\ddot{u}}rgen$ Habermas, public interest of the future inclines to the matter of 'system' while professional interest of the future leans to that of 'life-world.' Given the disparity of future interest, a 'mismatch paradigm' is proposed as an alternative to social forecasting, which can substitute the existing paradigms based on the ideas of deficiency or deprivation.