For those who are interested, you can find the full transcript here:http://www.kuleuven.be/communicatie/evenementen/evenementen/jurgen-habermas/en/democracy-solidarity-and-the-european-crisis Unfortunate or in fact fortunate for me is that I didn’t get the chance (ticket) to listen to the lecture. Although there is live broadcast (considerate KUL) in the park and in other auditoriums, I didn’t go since the main reason to join the lecture at all is to see the person in real rather to listen to his already too familiar theory. Failing in getting a ticket in time, I ended up in cooking at the same time of the lecture.
After the lecture, some youtube clip was mentioned on facebook and I clicked for a glance. The introduction by the president of the EU council was actually touching: he confirmatively answers the question Habermas repeatedly asks, i.e. whether politicians are aware of the challenge they are faced. He further claims in a fashion of confession, that politicians are faced with higher challenges than philosophers would imagine, that is, to make hard choices, although difficult but they have to, disappointing either these or those. This reminds me the difference between politics and political philosophy, as best narrated in Berlin, in praising the political talent necessary but largely neglected by philosophers, as in the example of Bismarck.
Habermas’s voice is quite unintelligible for me, also for my colleagues who were at the lecture. This is what I mean fortunate not being there. The transcript was printed into KUL pamphlet and I read part of it. I also get to know it by reading Chris’s blog (http://schwartztronica.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/habermas-leuven-the-eu-as-enormous-labor-union/ and his further analysis, also by discussing in the RIPPLE (http://www3.kuleuven.be/ripple lunch. Basically Habermas was calling for a EU solidarity, based on a mutual interest model, especially for Germans. Chris points out he’s actually calling for a EU Labor Union as instantiated early 20th century Europe to tackle rampant capitalism. However, this involves necessarily blood, which Habermas largely ignored. For me the concern is the notion of solidarity, which for Habermas is reduced to mutual interest. Solidarity, like many other political ideas are many symbolic and mystic than rational self-interest. It is more like a black box people are willing to go in without knowing exactly what is inside. Politics or the political, cannot be reduced to complete rational design and plan, nor should it be so. In this vein, Habermas remains as utopian as he always is.
