Customer Reviews

The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Habermas and Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) are two of the greatest minds of their times. This short work is their take on the interctions of democratic culture, political liberalism, religion and God. These two separate essays are the summation of a discussion between these two men. They were written well after the conversation had taken place and so ovbiously they're a little less satisfying than if we were able to read a transcript of the conversation, or perhaps response papers written immediately thereafter. However these are still two excellent essays, written by two brilliant men, who give the reader much to ponder about the current state of modern life.

Undoubtedly, these authors are the gold standard in their respective arena. The first is a Kant-based neo Marxist and the latter a theologian steeped in Augustine and leader of the Catholic world.

If you are in search of a page-turner with a climatic ending, keep looking. Otherwise, this is a smartly presented text divided into a chapter for each speaker who makes their case with calculated passion. The reader without a basic foundation for philosophy may find this one a bit over the top. If not, the book is succinct and delves into man's reason and existence in contemporary times.

In the end, the book achieves its intention. If it was meant to leave the reader undecided-it failed. However, this is not the case as one cannot continue to remind ones self that one chapter reinforces a philosophy that has been tried and exhausted within a century and another that has been tested two millennia and beyond. Both make their cases on man, politics, religion and our state of the world; however, it is clear which rings with hope, love and idealism.

Very rarely do I believe that a human dialogue approaches its subject from two very different poles. However, in the case of Habermas and Ratzinger's dialogue, one could say that the subject of their talk (on secularization's dialectic with religion) is really the form of their interaction. These two authors come from two very different starting points with regard to the state, although no dialectic is undertaken without a uniting point, even if it is the midpoint between two very extreme poles.

Habermas' speech considers the possibility of there being a weight to those precursors to the constitution. Although he reaches out toward the possibility of such, one can tell that his thought is much more centered upon the self-referential rationality from which the ongoing nature of the state springs. However, his considerations also come upon the post-modern realization self-reflection of reason upon reason, admitting that there are proto-rational foundations to rationality, at least because such exist in the liberal society and hold weight. However, one can see his markedly post-Enlightenment mentality insofar as these questions hold much more weight for him with regard to addressing the rational situation in which society "derails" itself. He leaves the question open as to where these two are placed, which seems a bit overly self-referential but also appropriate for this short consideration.

The speech given by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) is perhaps a bit lighter and more open its presentation of questions for consideration. The theologian considers the relationship of the "poles" of reason and faith which forms each, making them intertwined in extra-referential dialogue which prevents pathologies in either. In addition, there is the unifying concept of "natural law" which has in many ways been rejected by the application of the scientific fact of evolution to philosophy in all forms (as well as the general development of Western relativism). Instead of offering a scholastic consideration of natural law, Ratzinger merely points toward the necessity of dialogue in which the participant parties will find those unifying points which are ultimately pre-political. In the end, his essay remains an open question regarding this mutual dialogue of faith and reason as well as general cross-cultural dialogue.

These two essays are an excellent set of "open paths" from which a variety of considerations and spring on the dialectics and dialogue in the secular world and how this process of dialogue relates to the foundational elements of the state. I highly recommend them as dense, important reflections.

The Dialectics of Secularization is a well written pamphlet that gives you the basic thought behind the tension that exists between revelation(religion) and reason(secularization).It argues for an interplay between the two as the best way to enjoy the benefits of both. If you are unfamiliar with the subject, it's a start!

Reading this book requires a concentrated level of attentive reading. It is a great argument for a rational approach to the adoption of any belief system. Faith without reason is blind and capricious.

Both chapters are excellent. However, there is not a kind a debate where one lecture is coordinated with the other. It looks to me that they belong to different events.
Any way, ideas from both authors are to be analysed in deep due to the significance of the concepts about God's role in society.

Jurgen Habermas is a Neo-Marxist and born-again Kantian.Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI. Habermas despite twisting,turning and equivocation implying his variation on The CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE can sustain democratic Institutions(& ontological,ethical,epistemological,and even aesthetic underpinings)reluctantly admits LOGOS(subsistent,
metaphysical guaranteer of Being,Truth & Justice~ie God)is sine qua non for survival of Democratic West. Cardinal Ratzinger,a neo-Thomistic Aristotelian,now preeminent dogmatic Catholic theologian in the West,
echoes and expatiates on this admission as both warning and counsel to radical secularists~ Without LOGOS,"The Center will not hold"(Yeats):
Totalitarianism(451"benevolent"; die technik/Heideggerian material;or brutal Orwellian)is inevitable....

The virtue of this book is clarity and indisputable authority of its spokesmen. Take and read.