author: Oleksandr Kostyniuk
Abstract.
Relevance of the research. The urgency of the research is determined by the central role of communicative philosophy in the humanities and by the methodological challenges arising from its conceptual complexity. The choice of a research method predetermines the results, which necessitates a reflection on the research toolkit itself.
Problem statement. The problem lies in the lack of a systematic analysis of methodological foundations. Researchers often choose a single approach (hermeneutic, normative, or critical), which leads to one-sided interpretations where the theory appears either as a normative utopia or as an object for exposing hidden power mechanisms.
Analysis of recent research and publications. The analysis of scholarly works reveals the dominance of three main methodological strategies: hermeneutic (Gadamer, Taylor), normative-rationalist (Apel, Habermas, Forst), and critical (Foucault, Derrida, Butler). It is noted that there is a lack of productive dialogue between these paradigms, often leading to their confrontation.
Research task. The objectives of the article are: 1) to systematically describe four key methodological strategies (hermeneutic, normative-rationalist, critical, and comparative); 2) to analyze their strengths and weaknesses; 3) to substantiate the need for their synthetic application, with the comparative method acting as a meta-method.
Main material presentation. The article sequentially analyzes four methodological strategies. Hermeneutics is examined as a method for understanding meaning. The normative-rationalist paradigm is presented as a tool for justifying universal norms. Critical methods are shown as a means of exposing power asymmetries. The comparative method is presented as a tool for the reflective integration of these approaches.
Conclusions. It is concluded that a comprehensive, synthetic approach is necessary. The effectiveness of the research depends on the conscious combination of different methods. Such an integrated approach is particularly promising for analyzing contemporary challenges, especially the transformations of the public sphere in the digital era.
Keywords: communicative philosophy, history of philosophy, hermeneutics, comparative method, poststructuralism, critical theory.
References:
- Yermolenko, AM 2000, Komunikatyvna praktychna filosofiia (Communicative Practical Philosophy), Libra.
- Kebuladze, VI 2018, Fenomenolohiia dosvidu (Phenomenology of Experience), Dukh i Litera.
- Apel, K-O 1980, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy (G. Adey & D. Frisby, Trans.), Routledge & Kegan Paul.
- Borradori, G 2003, Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida, University of Chicago Press.
- Butler, J 1997, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, Routledge.
- Derrida, J 1997, Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.), The Johns Hopkins University Press, (Corrected ed.)
- Forst, R 2012, The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice (J. Flynn, Trans.), Columbia University Press.
- Foucault, M 1972, ‘The Discourse on Language’, In The Archaeology of Knowledge & The Discourse on Language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans., pp. 215-237), Pantheon Books.
- Fraser, N 1990, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy, Social Text, (25/26), pp. 56-80.
- Fraser, N & Honneth, A 2003, Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange,
- Gadamer, H-G 1989, Truth and Method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans., 2nd rev. ed.),
- Habermas, J 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action, 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (T. McCarthy, Trans.), Beacon Press.
- Habermas, J 1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.), MIT Press.
- Kelly, M (е) 1994, Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate, MIT Press.
- Taylor, C 1989, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Harvard University Press.
