Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:54:07.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Popper and Habermas: Convergent Arguments for a Postmetaphysical Universalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

By
Geoffrey Stokes
Edited by
Jeremy Shearmur  and
Geoffrey Stokes
Jeremy Shearmur
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Geoffrey Stokes
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to Popper , pp. 318 - 351
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Adorno, T. et al. 1976 [1969]. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. Trans. Adey, G. and Frisby, D.. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. 1976a. ‘Introduction’, in T.W. Adorno et al., pp. 1–67.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. 1976b. ‘Sociology and empirical research’, in T.W. Adorno et al., pp. 68–86.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. 1976c. ‘On the logic of the social sciences’, in T.W. Adorno et al., pp. 105–22.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, Max, 1979 [1944]. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. Cumming, J.. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bartley, W. 1964. ‘Rationality versus the theory of rationality’, in Bunge, M. ed. The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. London: The Free Press, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Benhabib, S. 1986. Critique, Norm, and Utopia. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, J and Rehg, W. 1997. ‘Introduction’, in Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. eds. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. ix–xxx.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahrendorf, R. 1976 [1962]. ‘Remarks on discussion’, in Adorno, T.W., et al. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, pp. 123–30.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. 1980 [1929]. The Quest for Certainty. New York: Perigee.Google Scholar
Dews, P. ed. 1986. Autonomy and Solidarity: Interviews with Jürgen Habermas. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. 2006. Deliberative Global Politics: Discourse and Democracy in a Divided World. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1991a. [1984] ‘What is enlightenment?’, in Rabinow, P. ed. The Foucault Reader, pp. 32–50.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1991b. ‘Truth and power’, in Rabinow, P. ed. The Foucault Reader, pp. 51–75.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2002 [1984]. ‘Confronting governments: Human rights’, in Faubion, J. D., ed. Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–84. Volume 3. Trans. Hurley, R. et al. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 2003 [1997]. ‘What is critique?’, in Rabinow, P. and Rose, N. eds. The Essential Foucault. New York: The New Press, pp. 263–78.Google Scholar
Freundlieb, D., Hudson, W. and Rundell, J. eds, 2004a. Critical Theory after Habermas: Encounters and Departures. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freundlieb, D., Hudson, W. and Rundell, J. 2004b. ‘Reasoning, language and intersubjectivity’, in Freundlieb, D., Hudson, W., and Rundell, J., eds. Critical Theory after Habermas: Encounters and Departures. Leiden: Brill, pp. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisby, D. 1972. ‘The Popper-Adorno controversy: The methodological dispute in German sociology’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 2(2), 105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisby, D. 1974. ‘The Frankfurt School: Critical theory and positivism’, in Rex, J. ed. Approaches to Sociology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 205–29.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1985. ‘Reason without revolution? Habermas’s Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns’, In Bernstein, R. J., ed. Habermas and Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 95–121.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1970. ‘Towards a theory of communicative competence’, Inquiry 13, 360–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1973. ‘A postscript to knowledge and human interests’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 3, 157–89.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1976a [1963]. ‘The analytical theory of science and dialectics’, in Adorno, T. W. et al., pp. 131–62.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1976b [1964]. ‘A positivistically bisected rationalism: A reply to a pamphlet’, in Adorno, T.W. et al., pp. 198–225.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1984 [1981]. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1986a. ‘Ideologies and society in the post-war world: Interview with Gad Freudenthal’, in Dews, P., ed. Autonomy and Solidarity, pp. 35–55.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1986b. ‘Political experience and the renewal of Marxist theory: Interview with Detlef Horster and Willem van Reijen’, in Dews, P., ed. Autonomy and Solidarity, pp. 73–92.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1986c. ‘A philosophico-political profile: Interview with Perry Anderson and Peter Dews’, in Dews, P., ed. Autonomy and Solidarity, pp. 149–89.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1987a [1981]. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2, Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1987b. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Trans. Lawrence, F.. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1989 [1962]. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1990 [1983]. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Trans. Lenhardt, C. and Nicholsen, S.W.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1991 [1990]. ‘What does socialism mean today?’, in Blackburn, R. ed. After the Fall. London: Verso, pp. 25–46.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1992a. ‘Further reflections on the public sphere’, in Calhoun, C. ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 421–61.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1992b. [1988]. Postmetaphysical Thinking. Trans. Hohengarten, W. M.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1993. Justification and Application. Trans. Cronin, C.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1996a. ‘Three normative models of democracy’, in Benhabib, S. ed. Democracy and Difference: Contesting Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1996b. Between Facts and Norms. Trans. Rehg, W.. Cambridge: Polity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1998. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Trans Cronin, C. and De Grieff, P.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 2003. Truth and Justification. Trans. Fultner, B.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 2006. The Divided West. Trans Cronin, C.. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 2008. Between Naturalism and Religion: Philosophical Essays. Trans Cronin, C.. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hacohen, M. 2000. Karl Popper: The Formative Years 1902–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Held, D. 1980. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. London: Hutchinson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, A. 1978. ‘The positivism dispute as a turning point in German post-war theory’, New German Critique 15, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. 1980. Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, M. 1982 [1968]. Critical Theory. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, M. 1996 [1946]. ‘Reason against itself: Some remarks on enlightenment’, in Schmidt, J. ed. What Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 359–67.Google Scholar
Jarvie, I. 2001. The Republic of Science: the Emergence of Popper’s Social View of Science 1935–1945. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. 1963. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Smith, N. Kemp. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1970a. ‘Idea for a universal history with cosmopolitan purpose’, in Reiss, H. ed. Kant’s Political Writings, pp. 41–53Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1970b. ‘An answer to the question: “What is enlightenment?”’, in Reiss, H. ed. Kant’s Political Writings, pp. 54–60.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1970 [1962]. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyotard, J-F. 1979 [1984]. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. Bennington, G. and Massumi, B.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, T. 1989. ‘Introduction’, in Habermas, J., The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, pp. xi–xiv.Google Scholar
Marcuse, H. 1971. Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis. Ringwood: Penguin.Google Scholar
Naraniecki, A. 2014. ‘Popper’s process philosophy: In the footsteps of Schelling’, Cosmos and History 11 (2), 197–215.Google Scholar
Norris, C. 1994. ‘“What is Enlightenment?”: Kant and Foucault’, in Gutting, G. ed. The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–96.Google Scholar
O’Neill, J. 2002. ‘The rhetoric of deliberation: Some problems in Kantian theories of deliberative democracy’, Res Publica 8, 249–68.Google Scholar
Popper, K. n.d. [c. 1940]. ‘A Non-Psychological Justification of the Categorical Imperative’, (unpublished paper) in Hoover Institution Archives, Popper Archive, Box 366:14:5.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1961 [1944–45 and 1957]. The Poverty of Historicism. 2nd edn, revised and corrected. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1966a [1945]. The Open Society and its Enemies. Volume I. The Spell of Plato. 5th edn, revised. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1966b [1945]. The Open Society and its Enemies. Volume II. The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath. 5th edn, revised. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1972a [1959][1934]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Trans. with Freed, J. and Freed, L.. Revised edn with new appendices. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1972b [1963]. Conjectures and Refutations. 4th edn, revised. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1972c [1981]. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1974. ‘Replies to my critics’, in Schilpp, P. A. ed. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. 2 Vols. La Salle, IL: Open Court, pp. 961–1197.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1976a [1962]. ‘The logic of the social sciences’, in Adorno et al., pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1976b [1970]. ‘Reason or revolution?’, in Adorno et al., pp. 288–300.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1982. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Volume III from the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, ed. Bartley, W. W. III, Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science. Volume I from the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, ed. Bartley, W. W. III. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1984. ‘Evolutionary epistemology’, in Pollard, J. W. ed. Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 239–55.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1992a. [1976] Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1992b. In Search of a Better World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1994. The Myth of the Framework, ed. Notturno, M. A.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 2008. After the Open Society: Selected Social and Political Writings, ed. Shearmur, J. and Turner, P.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1983. Realism and Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinow, P. ed. 1991 [1984]. The Foucault Reader. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Radnitzky, G. 1970. Contemporary Schools of Metascience. Göteborg: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Ray, L. 1979. ‘Critical theory and positivism: Popper and the Frankfurt School’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 9, 149–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehg, W. 1996. ‘Translator’s introduction’, in Habermas 1996b, pp. ix–xxxvii.Google Scholar
Reiss, H. ed. Kant’s Political Writings. Trans. Nisbet, H. B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Shearmur, J. 1996. The Political Thought of Karl Popper. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shearmur, J. 2007. ‘Popper and the problem of the public sphere’, unpublished paper delivered to the Philosophy Program, Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Stokes, G. 1997. ‘Karl Popper’s political philosophy of social science’, Philosophy of the Social Science 27(1), 56–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, G. 1998. Popper: Philosophy, Politics and Scientific Method. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Stokes, G. 2006. ‘Karl Popper’s revisionist/realist theory of democracy’, in Jarvie, I., Milford, K. and Miller, D., eds. Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment, Volume 1. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 217–30.Google Scholar
ter Hark, M. 2004. Popper, Otto Selz, and the Rise of Evolutionary Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. 1984/85. ‘Discourse and rationality’, Thesis Eleven 10/11, 110–26.Google Scholar
Wilson, H.T. 1976. ‘Science, critique, and criticism: The “Open Society” revisited’, in O’Neill, J. ed. On Critical Theory. New York: Seabury, pp. 205–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, H.T. 1981. ‘Response to Ray’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11(1), 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, M. 2011. ‘Post-metaphysical thinking’, in Fultner, B., ed. Jurgen Habermas: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge, pp. 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×