Why post?
July 6, 2008

Habermasian readers’ postings are, as the site header indicates, related to Habermas “as text, influence, adversary, exemplar.” “This site honors Habermas’ work: as contemporary philosopher, theorist, and public intellectual.” Ideally, postings should be apparently useful to—or thought-provoking for—engaged students of Jürgen Habermas’ work.

You don’t have to subscribe in order to post; you can email the list owner.

There aren’t lots of submitted postings that are rejected. I’m not a gatekeeper (but I prevent spam or try to catch transmission “garbage”; e.g., apostrophes and umlauts sometimes get distorted throughout a posting). Few persons post because—apparently (via query to everyone, early 2006)—many subscribers regard the site as a resource (like a free newsletter).

But if everyone is always only an appreciator (if not passive consumer), there could be no value created to appreciate! Yet, by now, the archive is a useful resource, perhaps; so site “silence” is fine by me. I’m not seeking idle discussion.

Especially valuable for everyone are notices of new work by scholars of Habermas’ work (or by Habermas, of course), or work importantly related to his work or interests. Though standard compilations of abstracts allow one to locate important new work (e.g., IngentaConnect, Philosopher’s Index), who’s got time to do rounds frequently? Give your kindreds a break. Contribute to the good of the order.

Postings from recognized Habermas scholars contribute to the public good without follow-up obligation. Your contribution would add value to the archive for engaged students of Habermas’ work and perhaps promote more contribution by other Habermas scholars, which adds more value for others down the road. To my mind, scholars aren’t tacitly contracting for a prolonged discussion with respondents by posting to the group and by adding to its value.

Some subscribers migrated from a discussion group sponsored by the University of Virginia (archives available—my participation there began August 24, 1997) which closed Dec., 2004 when the University stopped sponsoring academic discussion groups. So, a few subscribers at the Yahoo! list share a chronology that goes way back.

The archive is, at best, like an extended seminar, I hope—but with long silences and breaks.

All the best for your conceptual adventures,