Leading international scholars present novel dialogues between different psychoanalytic orientations as well as between the particularities of diverse socio-cultural and historical contexts in order to offer critical insights which are ...

Jürgen Habermas derives his political theory and discourse ethics from a view of language based upon “universal pragmatics.” Universal pragmatics is identified by Habermas to reveal universal conditions of possible understanding with the belief that not only syntactic and semantic characteristics of language, but also pragmatic characteristics of utterances related to speech should be reconstructed to build an undistorted communication. Nevertheless, the communicative competence, which is supposed to be related to pragmatics of language, is derived from the misinterpretation of J. (...) L. Austin’s theory of performative utterances. Linguistic as well as communicative competences have a universal core in universal pragmatics, which paves the way for the essentialist depiction of language having the Chomskyian overtones. Austin’s theory of performative utterances, on the other hand, does not have a universalistic claim. Because Habermas derives universal pragmatics from the misinterpretation of Austin’s theory of performative utterances, it is important to evaluate Austin and Habermas’s views of language by comparing and contrasting them with one another. The first part of the paper consists of the articulation of universal pragmatics. The second part of the paper focuses on Habermas’s unjustified critique of Austin. (shrink)

Perspicuous representation, Wittgenstein offers, is not another methodology, but it consists in seeing the connections. The Wittgensteinian perspicuous representation is therapeutic. The method he suggests for philosophy is the same method he suggests for social sciences. In both of these cases, he tries to get us to see the confusions we become entangled in when philosophizing and theorizing. In both of these disciplines he warns us not to advance explanatory, metaphysical theories. In this paper, I connect this concern with Wittgenstein’s (...) critique of Frazer. In criticizing Frazer, Wittgenstein adopts the important part of Spengler’s view. Nonetheless, there are differences between Wittgenstein’s views and those of Spengler; this paper aims to show similarities as well as these differences. The first part of the paper briefly summarizes Frazer’s views. The second part focuses on Wittgenstein’s critique of Frazer concerning science and technology. The third part gives an account of his critique regarding method of social sciences and philosophy. The last part concentrates on Wittgenstein’s critique of Frazer pertaining to the tolerance towards alternative forms of life. Key Words: context-free vacuum • evolutionary explanation • incommensurability • methodology of social sciences • perspicuous representation • science • technology • tolerance • totem and taboo. (shrink)

Perspicuous representation, Wittgenstein offers, is not another methodology, but it consists in seeing the connections. The Wittgensteinian perspicuous representation is therapeutic. The method he suggests for philosophy is the same method he suggests for social sciences. In both of these cases, he tries to get us to see the confusions we become entangled in when philosophizing and theorizing. In both of these disciplines he warns us not to advance explanatory, metaphysical theories. In this paper, I connect Wittgenstein's this concern with (...) his critique of Frazer. In criticizing Frazer Wittgenstein adopts the important part of Spengler's view. Nonetheless, there are differences between the views of Wittgenstein and those of Spengler; this paper aims to show similarities as well as these differences. The first part of the paper briefly summarizes Frazer's views. The second part focusses on Wittgenstein's critique of Frazer regarding science. The third part gives an account of his critique concerning method of social sciences and philosophy. The last part concentrates on Wittgenstein's critique of Frazer regarding the tolerance towards alternative forms of life. (shrink)

This paper outlines the methodology and experiments associated with the reshaping of human intentions based on robot movements within Human-Robot Interactions. Although studies on estimating human intentions are well studied in the literature, reshaping intentions through robot-initiated interactions is a new significant branching in the field of HRI. In this paper, we analyze how estimated human intentions can intentionally change through cooperation with mobile robots in real Human-Robot environments. This paper proposes an intention-reshaping system that includes either the Observable Operator (...) Models or Hidden Markov Models to estimate human intention and decide which moves a robot should perform to reshape previously estimated human intentions into desired ones. At the low level, the system needs to track the locations of all mobile agents using cameras. We test our system on videos taken in a real HRI environment that has been developed as our experimental setup. The results show that OOMs are faster than HMMs and both models give correct decisions for testing sequences. (shrink)