Habermas; Prejudice or theory/ Larijani’s note on Habermas’ position regarding the Gaza-rahnam war

According to the rahnam news agency, Mohammad Javad Larijani, the head of the Basic Knowledge Research Institute, wrote in a special note for the rahnam news agency criticizing the “statement of Jürgen Habermas and his companions about the Gaza war”:

  1. In an article recently published on the German site “Algemeine”, Habermas – a famous contemporary philosopher and theorist – has clearly stated three things about the recent events in Gaza and Palestine:

The first article: Wherever they are, Jews have the right to live comfortably and without worry and violence, and this is a “fundamental value”. (in the West and especially in Germany)

The second article: The country of Israel (and its Zionist system) must always have guaranteed security and be immune from any attack, and this is a fundamental political-social value. (in the West and especially in Germany)

The third article: Accusing the Zionist regime of genocide is an accusation beyond the defensible standards of judgment; Because the act of “genocide” requires “intention” before the action; While the goal of the Zionist regime is only self-defense, and the killing of civilians was and is just an accident outside of the goals of the Zionist regime.

  1. In his statement, Habermas does not mention the rights of the opposite side of the Zionists, that is, the oppressed people of Palestine and Gaza, and apparently only one actor is the focus of the discussion in this scene! Of course, he didn’t need an erasing pen and could simply declare that he has unquestionable support for the Zionist regime and its actions by confiscating it. Peace be upon him! And this confiscation is in complete harmony with the records of the mentioned interests! Habermas has received a “badge of honor” many times from the Jewish gatherings, and he expressed his support in the murders of the Zionists in the past decades, and when he was accused of favoritism or, at most, silence, regarding the crimes of Sabra, Shatila, Beirut, and Gaza. , hardly from his famous positions – in relation to dialectics Theory/praxis He was defending.
  2. Of the three articles announced, the third article should be considered as a joke! Is the random act of design premeditated and constantly repeated? Every day, the Zionist regime destroys dozens of houses, attacks schools, hospitals and centers for refugees with a large amount of phosphorous bombs and has killed more than fifteen thousand people, and half of them are children. are and…..

The Zionist government has repeatedly admitted that the armed forces of Hamas are stationed in underground tunnels and have military mobility, so they are not bombarded, and these innocent people, women, children, old and young, are the targets of their blind attacks. In addition, the Zionist government has officially announced that it intends to forcibly relocate the people of Gaza, and with the pressure of massive bombings and horrific massacres, and by blocking access to water, food, medicine, fuel, and other essentials, it wants to displace them from their own land. slow

With all these clear evidences, how can the terrible and unbelievable crimes of the Zionists be considered free of genocidal intent?! Habermas has interesting opinions in his works (especially about communicative and debating actions, etc.) about access to the thoughts of others (and the ability to reconstruct the inner core of volitional actions); And the assumption of “unintentional genocide” for the repeated, continuous and planned acts of the Zionist regime cannot be justified by any of those standards!

  1. In his statement, Habermas expresses great concern about the spread of anti-Semitism in the world, especially in the West and especially in Germany. But he doesn’t say anything about contemporary Western Islamophobia and hatred against Muslims and acts of violence against them and the “forceful” strictness regarding the performance of Muslim religious rituals and their way of life – from women’s hijab to ceremonies in mosques and…

In my opinion, what is on display is the “racism”, the superiority of German history in a clear and high degree. Nothing is unlikely from Western politicians, but from a philosopher who is anchored in the “left bank” and “people-oriented” Western thought, the presentation of this intellectual board is very serious and instructive for others – especially the intellectuals of the Islamic world.

  1. Now an important question is raised: Habermas is a famous and influential thinker and philosopher – especially in the fields of intellectualism and postmodernism – and the owner of a school in the field of epistemology and most importantly in the justification of value-ethical foundations. His works are read and read by a large part of people of opinion in the West, and even the fans of analytical philosophy – who do not agree with his approach very much – consider his content to be significant and important.

The important question is: Are the claims and positions announced by him in favor of the Zionist regime and justifying their genocide and vast crimes against the oppressed Palestine – both before and after October 7th – come from his intellectual foundations? Is it possible or is it just a personal fanatical opinion in favor of the Zionists and the usurping regime? If it is the second, the issue is not important and in the western world, there are many fanatics of the profession; However, if Habermas’ positions are derived from his philosophical foundations, it is a very important and interesting and contemporary issue, and in fact, it is a field for uncovering the intellectual-theoretical foundations of contemporary liberalism, especially the claim of popularism.

In my opinion, this possibility is correct and Habermas has reached these dark and dangerous conclusions with his theoretical foundations. In particular, it should be noted that he is one of those western thinkers who strongly considers it necessary to apply theoretical foundations to emerging socio-political issues and considers it a serious test for the power of the theory and its appropriateness, and the collection of articles on “the rise of conservatism” “New” written in America and Europe is clear about this.

  1. To explain more about the above-mentioned topic, I mention some points from his two important works about the nature of moral values ​​under the titles: “Moral awareness and the act of discussion” and “Between facts and values”. Of course, Habermas has many works, he is a prolific and prolific philosopher, and I strongly recommend paying attention to other mentioned writings.

(One): Our understanding of the truths of the world, whether they are in the theoretical field and try to express reality in the form of propositions, or whether they are related to the field of “voluntary action” and try to express “justified action”, both of them are capable of be based on a solid and especially universal basis.

(two). In contrast to the majority of analytical philosophers who consider the criterion of truth in propositions to be completely different from the criterion of justification of actions (moral values) and do not accept the dissolution of one into the other, Habermas believes that he has reached the basis that both grounds of truth (truth) in propositions And the justification of actions (in values) is answerable. And that is the belief and faith in the great power of “principled criticism and discussion” in discovering theoretical and practical facts (theory and praxis). And most importantly: it gives us universal standards regardless of land, culture, race and gender.

(Three). Habermas states the basic rule of moral-value justification of actions as follows: (translation is mine)

“The moral rule implicit in the theory of ethics of debates from which all the value bases of reason-oriented, “universal-oriented” and “structure-oriented” can be deduced:

In order for a value basis – practical norm – to be acceptable, it should be expected that the results and side effects of its public observance are for the special interests of each person who is exposed to the effect of its application in such a way that everyone freely accepts it.

It can be said that the basis of Habermas’ ethical theory is based on “consensus” arising from critical discussion and comprehensive discussion; And like other contemporary Western secular thinkers, he is looking for “false” (contractual) foundations for moral standards. Of course, different schools have appeared in this field; Such as: “social contract policy” in the theory of John Rawls; Habermas rejects natural morality and collective benefit and the like!

Now, the issue of consensus, regardless of its practicality, why it should be the basis of justifying a moral value is the most important challenge of this discussion. In justifying his opinion, Habermas claims that the discussion and criticism mentioned and cited by him has important rules, the observance of which during his discussion proves the “reasonableness” of adhering to those values. For example: honesty in discussion, welcoming to listen to others’ words, respecting others’ opinions and fair and fair calculation and evaluation of one’s own positions. Considering the importance of this discussion, Habermas states the second basic principle of the “theory of debate ethics” as follows: (translation is mine)

“Every justified value basis (norm) necessarily involves the approval of all parties around the issue, provided that they have participated in the practical discussion (criticism) related to it.”

  1. Now, an important problem can be posed to Habermas’s positions: even based on the criterion of “ethics of debates”, have there been systematic discussions between all sides of the issue, the result of which is the claim of basic values ​​for the global security of the Zionists and the protection of the Zionist regime? Basically, does anyone in the West dare or is it allowed to discuss these matters? And has a consensus been reached? yes A one-sided consensus against the oppressed Palestinians is seen in the western government centers! Is this what was meant by “acceptable norms of political-social action?”

Of course, I understand part of the confusion of the West, from political officials to their thinkers, based on the same principles as Habermas: The danger is the emergence of an accepted consensus against the Zionist project of the West And this is equivalent to the complete dissolution of the project in the field of political action and consensus moral evaluation.

end of message/

Leave a Comment