Philosophy
Apel's work brings together the Analytical and Continental philosophical traditions, especially pragmatism and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School.
In Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective, Apel reformulated the difference between understanding (Verstehen) and explanation (Erklärung), which originated in the hermeneutics of Wilhelm Dilthey and interpretive sociology of Max Weber, on the basis of a Peircean-inspired transcendental-pragmatic account of language. This account of the "lifeworld" would become an element of the theory of communicative action and discourse ethics, which Apel co-developed with Jürgen Habermas. Strategic rationality both claim to stand in need of communicative rationality that is seen as, in several regards, more fundamental. While sympathetic to Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action, Apel has been critical of aspects of Habermas's approach. Apel has proposed that a theory of communication should be grounded in the transcendental-pragmatic conditions of communication. After taking his point of departure from Apel, Habermas has moved towards a "weak transcendentalism" that is more closely tied to empirical social inquiry.
Apel has also written works on Charles Sanders Peirce and is a past president of the C.S. Peirce Society.
An early German-speaking adversary of so-called critical rationalism, Apel published a refutation of the philosophy of Karl Raimund Popper: In Transformation der Philosophie (1973), Apel charged Popper with being guilty of, amongst other things, a pragmatic contradiction.
Read more about this topic: Karl-Otto Apel
Famous quotes containing the word philosophy:
“Only a philosophy of eternity, in the world today, could justify non-violence.”
—Albert Camus (1913–1960)
“The great critic ... must be a philosopher, for from philosophy he will learn serenity, impartiality, and the transitoriness of human things.”
—W. Somerset Maugham (1874–1965)
“While you’re playing cards with a regular guy or having a bite to eat with him, he seems a peaceable, good-humoured and not entirely dense person. But just begin a conversation with him about something inedible, politics or science, for instance, and he ends up in a deadend or starts in on such an obtuse and base philosophy that you can only wave your hand and leave.”
—Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860–1904)