English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The R. Rorty J. Habermas debate on the issues of cultural dialogue and the horizons of human solidarity is largely based on the problems raised in of L. Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Despite their discord in interpreting the subject, both thinkers appeal to Wittgenstein’s understanding of language, communication, and culture thus revealing possible strategies of approaching this issue related to his theoretical heritage. Although Rorty and Habermas differ in evaluation of Wittgenstein’s thought, they are in complete agreement concerning the radical changes in contemporary philosophical stance of philosophizing that made his theoretical heritage highly significant. Declaring their opposition to the traditional metaphysics, Rorty and Habermas show philosophical and political divergences that become evident in their treatment of the issue of cultural dialogue and human solidarity. Wittgenstein’s criticism of the classical metaphysical tradition paved the way for the contemporary attempts to generate a new pattern of philosophical reflection. His irony was aimed first and foremost at destroying all forms of metaphysical constructions pretending to provide a global and all-embracing picture of reality (Wittgenstein 1980, 16e). Any finite foundation of our chain of arguments is questionable, but the infinite field of our thought confined within limits of language always surpasses our understanding (Wittgenstein 1980, 16e). This kind of ‘theoretical mysticism’ is the origin of his irony revealing the futility of all uncritical metaphysical constructions. It evidently gives nourishment to the anti-metaphysical declarations of his followers. Opposition to the classical stance of philosophizing means for both Rorty and Habermas the rejection of Platonic-Aristotelian ontological constructions of reality, as well as the Cartesian-Kantian philosophy of con-

Cultural Dialogue and Human Solidarity: The Rorty – Habermas-Debate Revisited in the Light of Wittgenstein´s Philosophy