II - Names
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 March 2019
Summary
A summary 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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon , pp. 473 - 713Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Suggested Reading
Honneth, Axel. 1991. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory, trans. Kenneth Baynes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2005. Adorno: A Biography, trans. Rodney Livingstone. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan 2016. Habermas: A Biography, trans. Daniel Steuer. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cortina, Adela. 1985. Razón Comunicativa y Responsabilidad Solidaria. Salamanca: Sígueme.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique. 1996. The Underside of Modernity: Apel Ricoeur, Rorty, Taylor, and the Philosophy of Liberation, trans. Eduardo Mendieta. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo. 1994. “Introduction,” in Apel, Karl-Otto, Selected Essays, vol. i, Towards a Transcendental Semiotics, ed. Mendieta, E.. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. xii–xiv.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo 2003. The Adventures of Transcendental Philosophy: Karl-Otto Apel’s Semiotics and Discourse Ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Nascimento, Amos. 2013b. “Phenomenology and Hermeneutics of Communication in Karl-Otto Apel’s Philosophy,” in Philosophy, Method, and Cultural Criticism, ed. McIlwain, Charlton. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Azmanova, Albena. 2014. “Crisis? Capitalism is Doing Very Well. How is Critical Theory?,” Constellations 21, no. 3: 351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Gideon. 2002. Civil Society and Democratic Theory: Alternative Voices. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heller, Ágnes and Fehér, Ferenc. 1987. Eastern Left, Western Left: Totalitarianism, Freedom and Democracy. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1986. Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, Patricia Mooney. 2012. “North American Critical Theory after Postmodernism,” in North American Critical Theory after Postmodernism: Contemporary Dialogues, ed. Mooney, Patricia Nickel, . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peruzzotti, Enrique and Plot, Martín. 2012. Critical Theory and Democracy: Civil Society, Dictatorship, and Constitutionalism in Andrew Arato’s Democratic Theory. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla. 2003. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, Tsao, Roy T., and Verovšek, Peter J., eds. 2010. Politics in Dark Times: Encounters with Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passerin d’Entrèves, Mauricio. 1994. The Political Philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Verovšek, Peter J. 2014. “Unexpected Support for European Integration: Memory, Totalitarianism and Rupture in Hannah Arendt’s Political Theory,” Review of Politics 76, no. 3: 389–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth. 1982. Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth 2006. Why Arendt Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd edn., ed. Sbisà, M. and Urmson, J. O.. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Charles. 1998. “Habermas on Speech Acts: A Naturalistic Critique,” Philosophy Today 42, no. 2: 126–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Assmann, Jan. 2012. “Cultural Memory and the Myth of the Axial Age,” in The Axial Age and Its Consequences, ed. Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. 366–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortolini, Matteo. 2012. “The Trap of Intellectual Success: Robert N. Bellah, the American Civil Religion Debate, and the Sociology of Knowledge,” Theory and Society 71, no. 2: 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, Merlin. 2012. “An Evolutionary Approach to Culture,” in The Axial Age and Its Consequences, ed. Bellah, Robert N. and Joas, Hans. Cambridge, MA: Belknap. 47–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lara, María Pía. 2013. The Disclosure of Politics: Struggles over the Semantics of Secularization. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Warner, Michael, Van Antwerpen, Jonathan, and Calhoun, Craig. 2010. Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. Critique, Norm and Utopia. A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2000. The Reluctant Modernism of Hannah Arendt. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2002. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla 2011. Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, et al. 1995. Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Pensky, Max. 2001. Melancholy Dialectics: Walter Benjamin and the Play of Mourning. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Pensky, Max 2013. “Solidarity with the Past and the Work of Translation,” in Religion and European Philosophy: Key Thinkers from Kant to Žižek, ed. Calhoun, Craig, Mendieta, Eduardo, and VanAntwerpen, Jonathan. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Gary, ed. 1991. On Walter Benjamin: Critical Essays and Recollections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Benhabib, Seyla and Fraser, Nancy, eds. 2004. Pragmatism, Critique, Judgment: Essays for Richard J. Bernstein. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. 1971. Praxis and Action: Contemporary Theories of Human Activity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J 1978. The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J 1986. Philosophical Profiles. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J 1991. The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizon of Modernity/Postmodernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colapietro, Vincent. 2013. “Richard J. Bernstein: Engaged Pluralist and Dialogical Exemplar,” in Philosophical Profiles in the Theory of Communication, ed. Hannan, Jason. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Davaney, Sheila Greeve and Frisina, Warren G., eds. 2006. The Pragmatic Century: Conversations with Richard J. Bernstein. Albany: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bloch, Ernst. 2018 [1952]. Avicenna and the Aristotelian Left, trans. Loren Goldman and Peter Thompson. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Daniel, Jamie Owen and Moylan, Tom. 1997. Not Yet: Reconsidering Ernst Bloch. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Eriksen, E. and Weigard, J. 1975. Ernst Blochs Wirkung: Ein Arbeitsbuch zum 90. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hudson, Wayne. 1982. The Marxist Philosophy of Ernst Bloch. New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Peter and Žižek, Slavoj, eds. 2013. The Privatization of Hope: Ernst Bloch and the Future of Utopia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Brandom, Robert. 1998. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert 2000b. “Facts, Norms, and Normative Facts: A Reply to Habermas,” European Journal of Philosophy 8: 356–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon. 2005. “Habermas’s Moral Cognitivism and the Frege–Geach Challenge,” European Journal of Philosophy 13: 319–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, David. 2010. Habermas: Introduction and Analysis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Alznauer, Mark, et al. Forthcoming. Special issue on Hauke Brunkhorst, Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions, Ethics & Global Politics.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey. 2005. “Translator’s Introduction,” in Brunkhorst, Hauke, Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Flynn, Jeffrey, et al. 2006. “Special Section: On Hauke Brunkhorst’s Solidarity,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 32, no. 7: 795–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minto, Robert, et al. 2015. “Special Section on Critical Theory of Legal Revolutions,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 41, no. 10: 983–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, Chris, et al. 2014. “Special Issue: Hauke Brunkhorst and the Sociology of Law,” Social & Legal Studies 23, no. 4: 487–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Friedman, Michael. 2000. A Parting of the Ways: Carnap, Cassirer, and Heidegger. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter E. 2010. Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Krois, John Michael. 1987. Cassirer: Symbolic Forms and History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bernstein, Jay. 1989b. “Praxis and Aporia in Habermas’ Critique of Castoriadis,” Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales 27, no. 86: 111–23.Google Scholar
Kalyvas, Andreas. 2001. “The Politics of Autonomy and the Challenge of Deliberation: Castoriadis Contra Habermas,” Thesis Eleven 64, no. 1: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitebook, Joel. 1989. “Intersubjectivity and the Monadic Core of the Psyche: Habermas and Castoriadis on the Unconscious,” Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales 27, no. 86: 225–44.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arato, A. and Cohen, J. 1994. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean 2002. Regulating Intimacy: A New Legal Paradigm. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean 2012. Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Addour, Azzedine. 2000. Colonial Myths: History and Narrative. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Borradori, Giovanna. 2003. Philosophy in a Time of Terror. Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chérif, Mustapha. 2008. Islam and the West: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida, trans. Teresa Lavender Fagan. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arens, Edmund. 2005. “Religion as Ritual, Communicative, and Critical Praxis,” in The Frankfurt School and Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers, trans. Chad Kautzer, ed. Mendieta, Eduadro. New York: Routledge. 373–96.Google Scholar
Calhoun, Craig, et al. 2012. Classic Sociological Theory, 3rd edn. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Jennifer M. 1993. Deconstructing Durkheim: A Post-Post-Structuralist Critique. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1973. Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Martin, Craig. 2014. “Individuality is Zero,” in Capitalizing Religion: Ideology and the Opiate of the Bourgeoisie. London: Bloomsbury. 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo. 2011c. “Rationalization, Modernity, and Secularization,” in Jürgen Habermas: Key Concepts, ed. Fultner, Barbara. Durham: Acumen. 222–38.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Alcoff, Linda Martín and Mendieta, Eduardo. 2000. Thinking from the Underside of History: Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Dussel, Enrique. 2000. “The Formal Thought of Jürgen Habermas From the Perspective of a Universal Material Ethics,” in Perspectives on Habermas, ed. Hahn, Lewis. Chicago: Open Court. 235–56.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo. 1999. “Ethics For an Age of Globalization and Exclusion,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 25, no. 2: 115–21.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo 2002b. “Politics in an Age of Planetarization: Enrique Dussel’s Critique of Political Reason,” in The Political. Blackwell Readings in Continental Philosophy, ed. Ingram, David. Oxford: Blackwell. 280–97.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo 2016. “Philosophy of Liberation,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter), ed. Zalta, Edward N.. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberation/ [accessed 07.10.2018].Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press. Chapter 3.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1967. “The Model of Rules,” University of Chicago Law Review 35: 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher. 2007. Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Ferrara, Alessandro. 1998. Reflective Authenticity: Rethinking the Project of Modernity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Alessandro 1999. Justice and Judgment: The Rise and Prospect of the Judgment Model in Contemporary Political Philosophy. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Alessandro 2008. The Force of the Example: Explorations in the Paradigm of Judgment. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Alessandro 2014. The Democratic Horizon: Hyperpluralism and the Renewal of Political Liberalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Landenne, Quentin and Carré, Louis. 2014. La philosophie reconstructive en discussions: dialogues avec Jean-Marc Ferry. Lormont: Bord de l’Eau.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy, Forst, Rainer, and Haugaard, Mark. 2014. “Power and Reason, Justice and Domination: A Conversation,” Journal of Political Power 7, no. 1: 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, et al. 2015. “Review Symposium: Rainer Forst’s The Right to Justification,” Political Theory 43, no. 6: 777–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Wendy and Forst, Rainer. 2014. The Power of Tolerance: A Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forst, Rainer, ed. 2014a. Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification: Rainer Forst in Dialogue. New York and London: Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forst, Rainer, et al. 2016. “Special Section on Rainer Forst: The Justification of Basic Rights,” Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 3: 3–92.Google Scholar
White, Stephen, et al. 2015. “Special Section on Rainer Forst’s Justification and Critique,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 41, no. 3: 205–34.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Allen, Amy. 2008. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ashenden, Samantha and Owen, David. 1999. Foucault Contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical Theory. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biebricher, Thomas. 2005b. Selbstkritik der Moderne. Habermas und Foucault im Vergleich. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1991. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael, ed. 1994. Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Colin. 2013. Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the Problems of Modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Fraser, Nancy. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 2009. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy 2013a. Fortunes of Feminism: From State Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy, et al. 2014. Transnationalizing the Public Sphere, ed. Nash, Kate. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William. 1999a. “Between Radicalism and Resignation: Democratic Theory in Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, Peter. Oxford: Blackwell. 153–78.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Makari, George. 2008. Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis. New York: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
Whitebook, Joel. 1995. Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysis and Critical Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitebook, Joel 2017. Freud: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Ormiston, Gayle and Schrift, Alan, eds. 1990. The Hermeneutic Tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1989. Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and D. G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
Kögler, Hans-Herbert. 1999. The Power of Dialogue: Critical Hermeneutics after Gadamer and Foucault. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Warnke, Georgia. 1987. Gadamer: Hermeneutics, Tradition, and Reason. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Gehlen, Arnold. 1988. Man: His Nature and Place in the World. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, Wilhelm. 1972. Soziales und instrumentales Handeln. Probleme der Technologie bei Arnold Gehlen und Jürgen Habermas. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Rehberg, Karl-Siegber. 1990. “Zurück zur Kultur? Arnold Gehlens anthropologische Grundlegung der Kulturwissenschaften,” in Kultur. Bestimmungen im 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Brackert, Helmut and Wefelmeyer, Fritz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 276–316.Google Scholar
Waller, Stefan. 2015. Leben in Entlastung. Mensch und Naturzweck bei Arnold Gehlen. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
Wörhle, Patrick. 2010. Metamorphosen des Mängelwesens. Zu Werk und Wirkung Arnold Gehlens. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Browne, Craig. 2016. Habermas and Giddens on Praxis and Modernity: A Constructive Comparision. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Akif Okur, Mehmet. 2007. “Rethinking Empire After 9/11: Towards A New Ontological Image of World Order,” Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs 12 (Winter): 61–93.Google Scholar
Browning, Gary. 2011. Global Theory from Kant to Hardt and Negri. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, Jodi and Passavant, Paul, eds. 2003. Empire’s New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nour, Soraya and Fath, Thorsten 2006. “Between Multitude and World-of-Life: The Criticism of Hardt and Negri on Habermas,” Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 21, no. 62: 115–25.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Brandom, Robert. 2015. “Towards Reconciling Two Heroes: Habermas and Hegel,” Argumenta 1, no. 1: 29–42.Google Scholar
Buchwalter, Andrew. 2011. “Law, Culture, and Constitutionalism: Remarks on Hegel and Habermas,” in Dialectics, Politics, and the Contemporary Value of Hegel’s Practical Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hammer, Espen. 2007. “Habermas and the Kant–Hegel Contrast,” in German Idealism: Contemporary Perspectives. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pippin, Robert. 1997. “Hegel, Modernity, and Habermas,” in Idealism as Modernism: Hegelian Variations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Readings
Kompridis, Nikolas 2011. “Receptivity, Possibility, and Democratic Politics,” Ethics and Global Politics 4, no. 4: 255–72.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1995. Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 61–78 and100–26.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Burnheim, John, ed. 1994. The Social Philosophy of Agnes Heller. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grumley, John. 2005. Agnes Heller: A Moralist in the Vortex of History. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Marcia. “Heller and Habermas in Dialogue: Intersubjective Liability and Corporeal Injurability as Foundations of Ethical Subjectivity,” Revue International de Philosophie 3, no. 273: 303–20.Google Scholar
Terezakis, Katie 2014. “Telling the Truth: History and Personality in the Philosophy of Agnes Heller,” Thesis Eleven 125, no. 1: 16–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Lucy Jane. 2016. Freedom and Dissatisfaction in the Works of Agnes Heller: With and Against Marx. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Freundlieb, Dieter. 2003. Dieter Henrich and Contemporary Philosophy: The Return to Subjectivity. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter. 1982. “Fichte’s Original Insight,” Contemporary German Philosophy 1: 15–52.Google Scholar
Henrich, Dieter 1987. “Was ist Metaphysik – was Moderne? Zwölf Thesen gegen Jürgen Habermas,” in Konzepte. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 11–43.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Fraser, Nancy and Honneth, Axel. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel. 1991. The Critique of Power: Reflective Stages in a Critical Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 1995. The Fragmented World of the Social: Essays in Social and Political Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2007b. Disrespect: The Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2014. Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honneth, Axel 2017. The Idea of Socialism: Towards a Renewal. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Iser, Mattias. 2008. Empörung und Fortschritt. Grundlagen einer kritischen Theorie der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Zurn, Christopher. 2014. Axel Honneth: A Critical Theory of the Social. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Abromeit, John. 2011. Max Horkheimer and the Foundations of the Frankfurt School. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla, Bonβ, Wolfgang, and McCole, John. 1993. On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives, trans. Kenneth Baynes and John McCole. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck. 2001. Habermas: A Philosophical-Political Profile. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
McCormick, John P. 2007. Weber, Habermas, and the Transformations of the European State: Constitutional, Social and Supranational Democracy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2016a. Habermas: A Biography, trans. Daniel Steuer. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Noerr, Gunzelin Schmid. 1998. “Horkheimer’s Habermas-Kritik von 1958,” in Frankfurt Schule und Studentenbewegung, von der Flaschenpost zum Molotowcocktail, 1946–1995, vol. iii, ed. Kraushaar, Wolfgang. Hamburg: Zweitausendeins.Google Scholar
Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baynes, Kenneth. 1990. “Crisis and Lifeworld in Husserl and Habermas,” in Crises in Continental Philosophy, ed. Alley, A. B., Scott, C. E., and Roberts, P. Holley. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Fultner, Barbara. 2001. “Intelligibility and Conflict Resolution in the Lifeworld,” Continental Philosophy Review 3: 419–36.Google Scholar
Russell, Matheson. 2011. “On Habermas’s Critique of Husserl,” Husserl Studies 27: 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swindal, James. 1999. Reflection Revisited: On Habermas’s Discursive Theory of Truth. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael. 1984. The Other: Studies in the Social Ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Buber, trans. C. McCann. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bellah, Robert and Joas, Has. 2012. The Axial Age and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, C., Juergensmayer, M., and VanAntwerpen, J., eds. 2011. Rethinking Secularism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirkbright, S. 2004. Karl Jaspers: A Biography. Navigations in Truth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Jonas, Hans. 2008. Memoirs, ed. Wiese, Christian, trans. Krishna Winston. Waltham, MA: Brandeis Press.Google Scholar
Löwith, Karl. 1994. My Life in Germany Before and After 1933, trans. Elizabeth King. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo. 1993. “Communicative Freedom and Genetic Engineering,” Logos 2, no. 1 (Winter): 124–40.Google Scholar
Wolin, Richard. 2001. Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bowman, Jonathan. 2015. Cosmopolitan Justice: The Axial Age, Multiple Modernities and the Postsecular Turn. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehg, William. 1994. Insight and Solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Marcuse, Herbert. 1929. “Über konkrete Philosophie,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 62: 111–28.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck. 2001. Jürgen Habermas: A Philosophical-Political Profile. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck 2013. Postnational Identity: Critical Theory and Existential Philosophy in Habermas, Kierkegaard, and Havel. Phoenix, AZ: New Critical Theory.Google Scholar
Matuštík, Martin Beck and Westphal, Merold, eds. 1995. Kierkegaard in Post/Modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 245–53.Google Scholar
Schrag, Calvin O. 1989. Communicative Praxis and the Space of Subjectivity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1973. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. 1994. Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. ed. 1996. The Rule of Law under Siege: Selected Essays of Franz L. Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. 1999b. Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. “Appendix A: The Six Stages of Justice Judgment,” in Essays on Moral Development II: The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages. San Francisco: Harper & Row. 621–39.Google Scholar
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., and Hewer, A. 1983. Moral Stages: A Current Formulation and a Response to Critics. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rehg, William. 1994. Insight and Solidarity: A Study in the Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Stephen K. 1988. The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, Justice and Modernity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Readings
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1985. Philosophical Apprenticeships, trans. Robert R. Sullivan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jonas, Hans. 2008. Memoirs, ed. Wiese, Christian, trans. Krishna Winston. Waltham, MA: Brandeis Press.Google Scholar
Löwith, Karl. 1994. My Life in Germany Before and After 1933, trans. Elizabeth King. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Wolin, Richard. 2001. Heidegger’s Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bausch, K. C. 1997. “The Habermas/Luhmann Debate and Subsequent Habermasian Perspectives on Systems Theory,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 14, no. 5: 315–30.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. 2000. “Luhmann, Habermas and the Theory of Communication,” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17, no. 3: 273–88.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, W. 1991. “Theories of Complexity, Complexities of Theory: Habermas, Luhmann, and the Study of Social Systems,” German Studies Review 14, no. 1: 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D. 1995. Reconstructing Theory: Gadamer, Habermas, Luhmann. Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Feenberg, Andrew. 2014. The Philosophy of Praxis: Marx, Lukács, and the Frankfurt School. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Hedrick, Todd. 2014. “Reification In and Through Law: Elements of a Theory in Marx, Lukács, and Honneth,” European Journal of Political Theory 13, no. 2: 178–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay, Martin. 1986. Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Löwy, Michael. 1979. Georg Lukács: From Romanticism to Bolshevism, trans. Patrick Camiller. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Postone, Moishe. 2003. “Lukács and the Dialectical Critique of Capitalism,” in New Dialectics and Political Economy, ed. Albritton, Robert and Simoulidis, John. New York: Palgrave. 78–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Frank, Manfred. 1989a. Die Grenzen der Verständigung: ein Geistergespräch zwischen Lyotard und Habermas. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Poster, Mark. 1992. “Postmodernity and the Politics of Multiculturalism: The Lyotard–Habermas Debate over Social Theory,” Modern Fiction Studies 38, no. 3: 567–80.Google Scholar
Raffel, Stanley. 1997. Habermas, Lyotard and the Concept of Justice. Houndmills: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Fritsch, Matthias, et al. 2012. “Winter 2012 Symposium: McCarthy on Race, Empire, and Development,” Symposia on Gender, Race, and Philosophy 8, no. 1.Google Scholar
Mendieta, Eduardo, et al. 2012. “Book Symposium on Thomas McCarthy’s Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development,” Neue Politische Literatur 57: 25–31.Google Scholar
Rehg, William, and Bohman, James, eds. 2001. Pluralism and the Pragmatic Turn: The Transformation of Critical Theory. Essays in Honor of Thomas McCarthy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Warnke, Georgia, Hoy, David Couzens, and McCarthy, Thomas. 1996. “Book Symposium on Thomas McCarthy, Ideals and Illusions,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 2, no. 2: 67–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Abromeit, John and Cobb, Mark, eds. 2004. Herbert Marcuse: A Critical Reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feenberg, Andrew. 1996. “Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology,” Inquiry 39, no. 1: 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellner, Douglas. 1984b. Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert, Feenberg, Andrew, and Webel, Charles, eds. 1988. Marcuse: Critical Theory and the Promise of Utopia. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Avineri, Shlomo. 1968. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah. 1978 [1939]. Karl Marx: His Life and Environment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1978. Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defense. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dean, Jodi. 2009. Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
McLellan, David. 1971. The Thought of Karl Marx: An Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Aboulafia, Mitchell. 1995. “Habermas and Mead: On Universality and Individuality,” Constellations 2: 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aboulafia, Mitchell 2001. The Cosmopolitan Self: George Herbert Mead and Continental Philosophy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1985. G. H. Mead: A Contemporary Re-examination of his Thought, trans. Raymond Meyer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans 1990. “The Creativity of Action amd the Intersubjectivity of Reason: Mead’s Pragmatism and Social Theory,” Transactions of the C. S. Peirce Society 26: 165–94.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Arens, Edmund. 2009. “Vom Schrei zur Verständigung. Politische Theologie als öffentliche Theologie,” in Theologisch-politische Vergewisserungen. Festschrift Johann Baptist Metz, ed. Polednitschek, Thomas, Rainer, Michael J., and Zamora, José A.. Münster: LIT. 129–38.Google Scholar
Kirwan, Michael. 2008. Political Theology: A New Introduction. London: Darton, Longman & Todd.Google Scholar
Peukert, Helmut. 1986. Science, Action, and Fundamental Theology: Toward a Theology of Communicative Action, trans. J. Bohman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Metz, Johann Baptist. 2006. Memoria Passionis. Ein provozierendes Gedächtnis in pluralistischer Gesellschaft. Freiburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cortina, Adela. 1985. Razón comunicativa y responsabilidad solidaria. Salamanca: Sígueme.Google Scholar
López de la Vieja, M. Teresa. 1994. “J. Habermas en años de transición para la filosofía española (1971–1990),” in Ética. Procedimientos razonables. Iria Flavia: Novo Seculo. 299–336.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier. 1973. “Teoría crítica y razón práctica (a propósito de la obra de Jürgen Habermas),” Sistema 3: 33–58.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 1989. “The Alternative of Dissent,” in The Tanner Lectures On Human Values, vol. x, ed. Peterson, Grethe B.. Cambridge University Press. 73–129.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 1990. Desde la perplejidad. Mexico City: FCE [partly translated as Ethics and Perplexity. Toward a Critique of Dialogical Reason, Muguerza 2004b].Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 1997. “De la conciencia al discurso: ¿un viaje de ida y vuelta?,” in La filosofía moral y política de Jürgen Habermas, ed. Gimbernat, J. A.. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. 63–110.Google Scholar
Muguerza, Javier 2004a. “Del yo (¿trascendental?) al nosotros (¿intrascendente?). La lectura de Kant en el neokantismo contemporáneo,” Daimon 33: 135–55.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Hansen, Miriam. 1993. “Unstable Mixtures, Dilated Spheres: Negt and Kluge’s The Public Sphere and Experience, Twenty Years Later,” Public Culture 5: 179–212.Google Scholar
Hohendahl, Peter Uwe. 1982. The Institution of Criticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Knödler-Bunte, Eberhard. 1975. “The Proletarian Public Sphere and Political Experience: An Analysis of Oskar Negt and Alexander Kluge’s The Public Sphere and Experience,” New German Critique 4: 51–75.Google Scholar
Koivisto, Juha and Väliverronen, Esa. 1996. “Resurgence of the Critical Theories of Public Sphere,” Jounral of Communication Theory 20: 18–36.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baxter, Hugh. 2011. Habermas: The Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. 1994. Between the Norm and the Exception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. ed. 1996. The Rule of Law under Siege: Selected Essays of Franz L. Neumann and Otto Kirchheimer. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheuerman, William E. 1999b. Carl Schmitt: The End of Law. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wiggershaus, Rolf. 1995. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Babich, Babette E., ed. 2004. Habermas, Nietzsche, and Critical Theory. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Biebricher, Thomas. 2005a. “Habermas, Foucault and Nietzsche. A Double Misunderstanding,” Foucault Studies 3: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kompridis, Nikolas. 2006. Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saar, Martin. 2007. Genealogie als Kritik: Geschichte und Theorie des Subjekts nach Nietzsche und Foucault. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Borchert, Jens and Lessenich, Stephan. 2016. Claus Offe and the Critical Theory of the Capitalist State. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2016a. Habermas: A Biography, trans. Daniel Steuer. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 6.Google Scholar
Geis, Anna and Strecker, David, eds. 2005. Blockaden staatlicher Politik: Sozialwissenschaftliche Analysen im Anschluss an Claus Offe. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Gerhardt, Uta. 2002. Talcott Parsons: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, David. 1989. Habermas and the Dialectic of Reason. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Apel, Karl-Otto. 1995. Charles S. Peirce: From Pragmatism to Pragmaticism, trans. J. M. Krois. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Fisch, Max H. 1986. Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism, ed. Laine Ketner, Kenneth and Kloesel, Christian J. W.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
McCarthy, Thomas. 1978. The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 232–71.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas 1982. “Rationality and Relativism: Habermas’ ‘Overcoming’ of Hermeneutics,” in Habermas: Critical Debates, ed. Thompson, John B. and Held, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, David. 2002. Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Michael. 1982. “Habermas’ Theory of Social Evolution,” in Habermas: Critical Debates, ed. Thompson, John B. and Held, David. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 162–80.Google Scholar
Wallulis, Jerald. 1990. The Hermeneutics of Life History: Personal Achievement and History in Gadamer, Habermas, and Erikson. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
De Mul, J., ed. 2014. Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology: Perspectives and Prospects. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. 2009. “Exploring the Core Identity of Philosophical Anthropology Through the Works of Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner, and Arnold Gehlen,” Iris: European Journal of Philosophy and Public Debate 1, no. 1: 153–70.Google Scholar
Honenberger, P. 2015. “Animality, Sociality, and Historicity in Helmuth Plessner’s Philosophical Anthropology,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 23, no. 5: 707–29.Google Scholar
Plessner, H. 1965a [1941]. Laughing and Crying: A Study of the Limits of Human Behavior, trans. M. Grene and J. Churchill. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Plessner, H. 1965b [1928]. Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch: Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plessner, H. 1999 [1924]. The Limits of Community: A Critique of Social Radicalism. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Adorno, Theodor W., et al. 1976. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, trans. Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shearmur, Jeremy and Stokes, Geoffrey, eds. 2016. The Cambridge Companion to Karl Popper. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Auxier, R. E., Anderson, D. R., and Hahn, L. E., eds. 2015. The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Gil, F. J. 2009. “Finitude as Mark of Excellence. Habermas, Putnam and the Peircean Theory of Truth,” Ontology Studies 9: 79–89.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 2002a. “Antwort auf Jürgen Habermas,” in Hilary Putnam und die Tradition des Pragmatismus, ed. Raters, M.-L. and Willaschek, M.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 2002b. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Rasmussen, David 1996. “How is Valid Law Possible? A Review of Faktizität und Geltung,” in Habermas, Modernity and Law, ed. Deflem, Mathieu. London: Sage. 21–44.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, David 1998. “Liberalism Reconsidered: A Review of J. Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 82 (April): 52–55.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, David 2014. “Legitimacy, Sovereignty, Solidarity, and Cosmopolitanism: On the Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 40, no. 1: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Baynes, Kenneth. 1992. The Normative Grounds of Social Criticism: Kant, Rawls, and Habermas. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Finlayson, James Gordon and Freyenhagen, Fabian, eds. 2011. Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forst, Rainer. 2011. “The Justification of Justice: Rawls’s Political Liberalism and Habermas’s Discourse Theory in Dialogue,” in The Right to Justification, trans. Jeffrey Flynn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Hedrick, Todd. 2010. Rawls and Habermas: Reason, Pluralism, and the Claims of Political Philosophy. Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2009. “Religion in the Public Sphere: What are the Deliberative Obligations of Democratic Citizenship?,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 35, no. 1: 127–50.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Thomas. 1994. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue,” Ethics 105, no. 1: 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, Melissa. 2007. “Rawls and Habermas On Religion in the Public Sphere,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 33, no. 7: 880–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Ricoeur, Paul. 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, ed. Thompson, John B.. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, John B. 1984. Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur and Jürgen Habermas. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Colapietro, Vincent. 2011. “Richard Rorty as Peircean Pragmatist: An Ironic Portrait and a Sincere Expression of Philosophical Friendship,” Pragmatism Today: The Journal of the Central-European Pragmatist Forum 2, no. 1 (Summer): 31–50.Google Scholar
Gross, Neil. 2008. Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosophy. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1991b. Philosophical Papers, vol. i, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1991c. Philosophical Papers, vol. ii, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1998b. Philosophical Papers, vol. iii, Truth and Progress. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Pensky, Max. 1999. “Jürgen Habermas and the Antinomies of the Intellectual,” in Habermas: A Critical Reader, ed. Dews, P.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bambach, Charles. 1995. Heidegger, Dilthey, and the Crisis of Historicism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frings, Manfred S. 1997. The Mind of Max Scheler. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Frisby, David. 1992. The Alienated Mind: The Sociology of Knowledge in Germany 1918–1933. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meja, Volker and Stehr, Nico, eds. 1990. Knowledge and Politics: The Sociology of Knowledge Dispute. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mohr, Eric J. 2016. “Mixing Fire and Water: A Critical Phenomenology,”in Phenomenology for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Simmons, J. A. and Hackett, J. E.. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert. 1991. Value-Free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Specter, Matthew. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Dews, Peter. 2019. “Schelling and the Frankfurt School,” in Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School, ed. Gordon, Peter, Hammer, Espen, and Honneth, Axel. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. 1975. Der unendliche Mangel an Sein. Schellings Hegelkritik und die Anfänge der Marxschen Dialektik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred 1989b. “Schelling’s Critique of Hegel and the Beginnings of Marxian Dialectics,” Idealistic Studies 19, no. 3: 251–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutter, Axel. 1996. Geschichtliche Vernunft. Die Weiterführung der Kantischen Vernunftkritik in der Spätphilosophie Schellings. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Löwith, Karl. 1964. From Hegel to Nietzsche. The Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Thought. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 115–21.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Habermas, Jürgen. 1986e. “Sovereignty and the Führerdemokratie,” Times Literary Supplement, September 26: 1053. [SFD]Google Scholar
Johnson, Pauline. 1998. “Carl Schmitt, Jürgen Habermas, and the Crisis of Politics,” The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms 3, no. 6: 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specter, Matthew. 2010. Habermas: An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Adorno, Theodor W. and Scholem, Gershom 2015. “Der liebe Gott wohnt im Detail,” 1939–1969. Briefwechsel, ed. Angermann, Asaf. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Biale, David. 1979. Kabbalah and Counter-History, 1st edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom 1971. The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays in Jewish Spirituality. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom 1973. Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah, trans. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Scholem, Gershom 1989. “Ten Ahistorical Theses on the Kabbalah,” in Od Davar. Tel Aviv: Am Oved.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cooke, Maeve. 1994. Language and Reason: A Study of Habermas’s Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Habermas, J. 1985b. “Zwischen Heine und Heidegger: Ein Renegat der Subjektphilosophie?,” in Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit: Kleine Politische Schriften V. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [DNU]Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 1987. Critique of Cynical Reason, trans. M. Eldred. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press [Kritik der zynischen Vernunft (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1983)].Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 2009a. “Die Revolution der gebenden Hand,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 13.Google Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 2009b. “Rules for the Human Zoo: A Response to the Letter on Humanism,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27: 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bohmann, Ulf and Montero, Dario. 2014. “History, Critique, Social Change and Democracy: An Interview with Charles Taylor,” Constellations 21: 3–14.Google Scholar
Cooke, Maeve. 1997. “Authenticity and Autonomy: Taylor, Habermas, and the Politics of Recognition,” Political Theory 25: 258–88.Google Scholar
Endreß, Martin. 2012. “Säkular oder postsäkular? Zur Analyse der religiösen Konturen der Gegenwart im Spannungsfeld der Beiträge von Jürgen Habermas und Charles Taylor,” in Herausforderungen der Modernität, ed. Endreß, M. et al. Würzburg: Echter. 213–37.Google Scholar
Rosa, Hartmut. 1995. “Goods and Life-Forms: Relativism in Charles Taylor’s Political Philosophy,” Radical Philosophy 71: 20–26.Google Scholar
Rosa, Hartmut 1996. “Cultural Relativism and Social Criticism from a Taylorian Perspective,” Constellations 3: 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Theunissen, Michael. 1970. Hegels Lehre vom absoluten Geist als theologisch-politischer Traktat. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theunissen, Michael 1978. Sein und Schein. Zur kritischen Funktion der Hegelschen Logik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael 1984. The Other: Studies in the Social Ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Buber. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Theunissen, Michael 2005. Kierkegaard’s Concept of Despair. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bratman, Michael E. 1999. Faces of Intention. Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, P. and Boyd, R. 2006. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2007. The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Tugendhat, E. 1982. Traditional and Analytical Philosophy: Lectures on the Philosophy of Language, trans. P. A. Gorner. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, E. 1985. “Habermas’ Concept of Communicative Action,” in Social Action, ed. Seebass, G. and Tuomela, R.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 179–86.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, E. 1989. Self-Consciousness and Self-Determination, trans. Paul Stern. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tugendhat, E. 2002. “Habermas on Communicative Action,” in Jürgen Habermas, ed. Rasmussen, David and Swindal, James. London: Sage. 216–22.Google Scholar
Zabala, S. 2008. The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy: A Study of Ernst Tugendhat, trans. M. Haskell and S. Zabala. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Vattimo, Gianni. 1988. The End of Modernity: Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Postmodern Culture, trans. J. R. Snyder. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni 1992. The Transparent Society, trans. David Webb. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni 2004. Nihilism and Emancipation: Ethics, Politics, and Law, ed. Zabala, Santiago, trans. William McCuaig. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Vattimo, Gianni 2014. A Farewell to Truth, trans. R. Valgenti. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Zabala, S., ed. 2007. Weakening Philosophy. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Müller-Doohm, Stefan. 2016a. Habermas: A Biography, trans. Daniel Steuer. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Sica, Alan. 2004. Max Weber: A Comprehensive Bibliography. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Honneth, Axel. 2007a. “Artist of Dissonance: Albrecht Wellmer and Critical Theory,” Constellations 14, no. 3: 305–14.Google Scholar
Lara, María Pía. 1995. “Albrecht Wellmer: Between Spheres of Validity,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 21, no. 2: 1–22.Google Scholar
Whitebook, Joel. 1993. “From Schoenberg to Odysseus: Aesthetic, Psychic, and Social Synthesis in Adorno and Wellmer,” New German Critique 58: 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suggested Reading
Williams, Raymond. 1958. Culture and Society. London: Chatto & Windus [new edn. with a new introduction, New York: Columbia University Press, 1963].Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond 1977. Marxism and Literature. Marxist Introductions series. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond 1989. “The Idea of a Common Culture,” in Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy and Socialism, ed. Gable, R.. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Winter, Rainer. 2010. “The Perspectives of Radical Democracy: Raymond Williams’ Work and Its Significance for a Critical Social Theory,” in About Raymond Williams, ed. Seidl, M., Horak, R., and Grossberg, L.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Cavell, Stanley. 1976. “The Availability of Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy,” in Must We Mean What We Say? Cambridge University Press. 44–72.Google Scholar
Cavell, Stanley 1989. This New Yet Unapproachable America. Lectures after Emerson and Wittgenstein. Albuquerque, NM: New Batch Press.Google Scholar
Fogelin, Robert. 1996. “Wittgenstein’s Critique of Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, ed. Sluga, Hans and Stern, Dabid G.. Cambridge University Press. 34–58.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1995. “Lichtung or Lebensform: Parallels between Heidegger and Wittgenstein,” in Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 61–78.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2003. “Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy,” in The Grammar of Politics: Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy, ed. Heyes, Cressida. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 17–42.Google Scholar
Suggested Reading
Bellon, Christina, ed. 2008. In Honor of Iris Marion Young: Theorist and Practitioner of Justice. Hypatia 23, no. 3: 1–250.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Ann and Nagel, Mechthild, eds. 2009. Dancing with Iris: The Philosophy of Iris Marion Young. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1990a. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion 1997. Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion 2007. Global Challenges: War, Self-Determination and Responsibility for Justice. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar