identity
Throughout the human civilization there are two main distinctions between the social and individual identities. This very thin but at the same time very significant line sets the human unity and only by putting away some identities which would not fit with the rest of the society. That is why the proverb 'one should keep in step with the society' is still valid and also logical as well. I f one would not do so then there will be no unity for him with the society. In this respect Habermas' argument about the social identity is more logical and realistic than the Historian's argument.According to Habermas, as one should agree, people get together by putting away their differing individual views, ideas and thoughts. They agree on one social identity so that provides the unity of that society. Of course each person as an individual has their own arguments however in the public sphere individuals have to choose a common argument. This could be worse or better than what each individual have in their minds however the majority sets the rules so the others have to follow them in order not to be excluded and expelled from the society. For instance imagine a communist or a socialist person who really hates capitalists and American affec
He also accuses Historians for being dreamers. The very recent and suitable example for the situation is "Ates Hatti" by Reha Muhtar. tations as there are many in our university, how would he or she behave, would he fights against them, or would he protest them explicitly even by shouting out to their faces? No, Probably not because even that person have friends and an environment, which has these sorts of, people in it. The value of each opinion is very true and acceptable, I agree with it however in a bigger environment with more people included this attitude would only cause a chaos. Imagine that an instructor totally against the current academic system and he or she wants to use another system which the rest totally disagree with. For instance we can take an instructor as an example. Not taking attendance, no exams, an instruction which depends only on the conversation or discussion in the class. In terms of freedom of individual, this is a very ethical and logical attitude however when we consider the facts of the societies we come to a point of problems caused by the opinions of each individual. Mach also agrees with Habermas just like me, against the historians. He says they dream of an issue which will not become true. So in order not to lose his friends and in !order not to be a disliked and a disturbing image she has to accept those people and how much she is really against what they do, does not matter so that she puts that identity to a side and join the rest with another approach and identity which is a result of the social identity. They think Habermas is inhumanistic and also they suggest that every opinion has a value and it must be considered. An exile, expel or excluding from the society are the possible results of one's conflict with the majority. Moreover they do not find any solutions to those problems they discuss but more than that they arise new questions and new problems. In contradiction with Habermas and Mach, the historians claim that public sphere is there to provide a space for free expression of ideas.
Common topics in this essay:
Habermas Mach,
According Habermas,
TV Till,
,
social identity,
Muhtar TV,
habermas mach,
social individual identities,
unity society,
individual social,
individual identities,
thin significant,
social individual,
public sphere,
social identities,
|
Acceptance Essays
