From A Transcendental-Semiotic Point of View [Paperback]

Karl-Otto Apel (Author), Marianna Papastephanou (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0719055385 | ISBN-13: 978-0719055386 | Publication Date: February 15, 1999

Collected together for the first time in English, Karl-Otto Apel’s most recent work covers a broad spectrum of philosophical issues. Highly original, this work will be valuable to academics and students concerned with (post-) analytic philosophy, epistemology, history of science, Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, current debates about transcendental modes of argument, second-generation Frankfurt School thinkers and American pragmatists. It will be no less useful to all those interested in reformulations of Kantian themes and redefinitions of older ideas within the linguistic paradigm, as well as those who, being familiar with Habermas’s work, wish to know more about the controversies and debates within the circle of the Frankfurt School itself.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Karl-Otto Apel is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Frankfurt am Main.

Marianna Papastephanou is Lecturer in Philosophy in the Department of Education at the University of Cyprus.

Product Details

• Paperback: 224 pages
• Publisher: Manchester University Press (February 15, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0719055385
• ISBN-13: 978-0719055386
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,717,656 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Great Book of Philosophy., June 29, 2006

By 

craig "craig" (Europe) - See all my reviews

This review is from: From A Transcendental-Semiotic Point of View (Paperback)

This collection of Apel's recent work is great. Each essay is concise, lucid and above all extremely clear. Apel does not beat around the bush (Habermas) and does not come to the rather contrived and nihilistic conclusions that many so-called post-modern philosophers come to, so that when one finishes one of their books one wonders why one even bothered reading it(all of their intricate arguments basically boil down to relativism or a form of contextual existentialism which again basically boils down to contextual relativism and or nihilism or a witty form of irony which tries to be original and unconventinal but in actuality simply re-calls the rather tiresome irrationalism of the romantic movement (Maistre) which did despite what Heiddegger might want to public to think end in his support of Hitler and the fascist movement in Germany and Italy, fascism like Heiddeger's existentialist break was definitely a break with the tradition of the enlightenment and not the logical extension of it, although I am sure this is not what Heiddegger and his followers would like one to believe--- in order to disguise his own and their master's fallibility.)

Apel is an elightenment philosopher in the good sense-- and although he has many connections with Habermas his arguments are much stronger and less hampered with contradictions (Habermas's simultaneous reluctance and use of the idea of the performative contradiction comes to mind). Above all Apel concerns himself with refuting all forms of dogmatism without allowing himself the recourse to obsurantism, and other cheap forms of escapism, Apel's transformation of Peircean philosophy is probably the strongest response to the resurgence of fundamental religious thought, and nihilistic post-modern thought within philsophy today. Philosophers such as Rorty although they do offer some good arguments (and in the end they do mean well) in the end do not make their arguments in a forceful or convincing way and so lend support to those irrationalist tendencies in modern society (religious fundamentalism, racism, homophobia, and political oppression) by supporting a rather nihilist philosophical position which unintentionally invites some of the worst forms of prejudice.