Share This Article:

An Inquiry into Habermas’ Institutional Translation Proviso

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:2569KB) PP. 43-53
DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2015.51006    4,024 Downloads   4,482 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

The task of this paper is to argue against the opponents of Habermas’ institutional translation proviso. The opponents argue against Habermas on the grounds that 1) religious utterances are like cultural differences, ethnic differences and philosophical differences, 2) there are numerous cultures with their distinct religious potential truth contents that are not scientifically demonstrable. The latter argument is based on Occult/Paranormal experiences which are realities of life, hence should be allowed into the public sphere. However, this paper argues that religious utterances as Habermas articulates them are not equiparable to cultural, ethnic and philosophical differences and also that, Occult/Paranormal experiences are restricted to few adepts in it, hence, lacking general accessibility. In mind of our increasingly pluralistic society, there is need for common understanding of religious potential truth contents for general agreement and unity of purpose. Hence, we say that anyone who wants to bring religious potential truth contents into the public sphere seems to have no option other than to translate them into secular language for common understanding. It is based on common understanding that participants in the public sphere enter into a meaningful rational-critical debate resulting in mutual agreement.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Nweke, C. and Nwoye, C. (2015) An Inquiry into Habermas’ Institutional Translation Proviso. Open Journal of Philosophy, 5, 43-53. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2015.51006.

References

[1] Adibe, G. E. (2006). Ogwu Igbo Traditional Power Challenges the Igbo Christian. Onitsha: GoodMark Prints Production.
[2] Binsbergan, V. (2001). Witchcraft in Modern Africa. In G. C. Bond (Ed.), Witchcraft Dialogue: Anthropological and PHILOSOPHICAL Exchanges (p. 213). Ohio: Ohio University Press.
[3] Calhoun, C. (Ed.) (1992). Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[4] Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Berger and Frederick Lawrence, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[5] Habermas, J. (2011). “The Political”: The Rational Meaning of a Questionable Inheritance of Political Theology. In M. Eduardo, & V. Jonathan (Eds.), The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere (pp. 15-33). New York: Columbia University Press. (Habermas uses arguments, reasons, truth contents, language to represent religious ideas or experiences. For him, because religious experiences are particular and peculiar to their adherents they have to be translated into secular language, that is, language that has general accessibility that is understandable both to the religious and non religious citizens as well.)
[6] Onwuama, E. M. (2012). The Epistemological Basis of the Belief in the Occult and Paranormal and the Implications of This Belief System in Nigeria. In C. A. Ebelebe (Ed.), Spirits: Occultism, Principalities & Powers Acts of the 14th SIST International Missiological Symposium (pp. 61-88). Enugu: San Press Ltd.
[7] Oraegbunam, I. K. E. (2005). A Philosophical Critique of Some Judicial Attitudes to Juju-Related Crimes in Nigeria. Essence Interdisciplinary-International Journal of Philosophy, 2, 188-203.
[8] Patrick, L., & Stefan, R. (2013). Religious Arguments in the Public Sphere: Comparing Habermas with Rawls. 239-241.
http://www.adss.library.un.nl/publish/articles/000090/bookpart.pdf
[9] Schellings, E. (2011). A Cosmopolitan Public Sphere: Jürgen Habermas’ Public Sphere, Mutual Human Obligations and Online Movement (Utrecht). M.A. Thesis, Utrecht: University Of Utrecht.
[10] Taylor, C. (2011). Why We Need a Radical Redefinition of Secularism. In M. Eduardo, & V. Jonathan (Eds.), The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere (pp. 34-59). New York: Columbia University Press.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.