Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T13:33:48.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patroklos's Funeral and Habermas's Sentence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Elías José Palti
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Section Symposium
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , Fall 1998 , pp. 1017 - 1044
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apel, Karl-Otto. 1992. Normatively Grounding “Critical Theory” through Recourse to the Lifeworld? A Transcendental-Pragmatic Attempt to Think with Habermas against Habermas. In Political Interventions in the Unfinished Project of Enlightenment, ed. Honneth, Axel, McCarthy, Thomas, Offe, Claus, and Wellner, Albrecht. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1959. The Human Condition. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Baker, Keith. 1992. Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas. In Calhoun 1992.Google Scholar
Balibar, Etienne. 1991. Citizen/Subject. In Who Comes After the Subject? ed. Cadava, E., Connor, P., and Nancy, J. L. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992a. Models of Public Space: Hannah Arendt, the Liberal Tradition, and Jürgen Habermas. In Calhoun 1992.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992b. Autonomy, Modernity, and Community: Communitarianism and Critical Social Theory in Dialogue. In Political Interventions in the Unfinished. Project of Enlightenment, ed. Honneth, Axel et al. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Blumenberg, Hans. 1982. Work on Myth. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bubner, Rudiger. 1992. Antike Themen und ihre moderne Verwandlung. Frankfurt and Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig, ed. 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Döber, Rainer. 1990. Against the Neglect of Content in the Moral Theories of Kohlberg, and Habermas. In The Moral Domain: Essays on the Ongoing Discussion between Philosophy and the Social Sciencies, ed. Wren, T. E. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dwars, Ingrid. 1992. Application Discourse and the Special Case-Thesis. Ratio Juris 5:67–78.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1978. La verdad y las formas jurídicas. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In Calhoun 1992.Google Scholar
Günther, Klaus. 1990. Impartial Application of Moral and Legal Norms: A Contribution to Discourse Ethics. In Universalism vs. Communitarianism: Contemporary Debates in Ethics, ed. Rasmussen, D. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1979. History and Evolution. Telos 39:17–44.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1991a. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. 1962. Reprint, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1991b. Questions and Counterquestions. In Habermas and Modernity, ed. Bernstein, R. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1993. Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. The Past As Future. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Heller, Agnes. 19841985. The Discourse Ethics of Habermas. Thesis Eleven 10/1:5–17.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried. 1987. Politische Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt and Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations Foreign Affairs Quarterly 72(Summer):22–49.Google Scholar
Jacobi, F. H. 1812. Beylage to David Hume über den Glauben, oder Idealismus und Realismus, ein Gespräch . In Werke, ed. Jacobi, F. H. and Köppen, F. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Fleischer.Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1981. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. 6th ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael. 1990. Maclntyre, Habermas, and the Philosophy of Ethics. In Hermeneutics and Critical Theory in Ethics and Politics, ed. Kelly, Michael. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1987. The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
MacDowell, Douglas. 1978. The Law in Classical Athens Aspects of Greek and Roman Life. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. Practical Discourse: On the Relations of Morality to Politics. In Calhoun 1992.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max. 1995. Universalism and the Situated Critic. In The Cambridge Companion to Habermas, ed. White, Stephen. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, Bernhard. 1994. On Reconstructive Legal and Political Theory. Philosophy and Social Criticism 20:71–100.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1995. Reply to Habermas. Journal of Philosophy 92:32–180.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 1988. Legitimität und Legalität. Berlin: Duncker und Humbolt.Google Scholar