Descartes was half right—or, more accurately, half meaningful—to those with cognitive-emancipatory interests. However, a strictly rationalist approach (like Descartes’ a priori foundations) is insufficient because empirically grounded semantic processing (how meaning is experienced and interpreted) is just as crucial as universal interpretive schemes.

Habermas would argue that both dimensions—experiential meaning-making and formal, rule-governed structures—are interdependent. In the first instance, semantic processing itself functions as a kind of universal, since communicative understanding relies on shared structures of meaning. In the second, formal interpretive schemes (like those in discourse ethics) provide the scaffolding necessary to mediate and validate those meanings intersubjectively.

Thus, while Descartes prioritized solitary reflection, Habermas insists that meaning and knowledge emerge from the interplay between lived experience and the formal conditions of communicative reason.

Jurgen Habermas uses the term "formalism" in a specific way, particularly in the context of his moral and political philosophy. For Habermas, formalism refers to the procedural and universalizable structure of moral and legal norms, rather than their substantive content. His approach is deeply influenced by Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, but he extends it through his discourse ethics (Diskursethik) and theory of communicative action.

Key Aspects of Habermas’s Formalism:

1. Proceduralism Over Substance:

   • Habermas’s formalism emphasizes the process by which norms are justified rather than prescribing specific moral content.

   • Unlike substantive ethical theories (e.g., utilitarianism or virtue ethics), his discourse ethics focuses on how valid norms are established through rational discourse among free and equal participants.

2. Universalization Principle (U):

   • In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (1983), Habermas reformulates Kant’s categorical imperative in discursive terms:

     "A norm is valid when all affected by it could agree to it in a practical discourse."

   • This principle is formal because it doesn’t dictate what the norm should be, only the conditions under which it can be legitimately justified.

3. Discourse Ethics as a Formal Pragmatics:

   • Habermas’s approach is formal because it outlines the rules of discourse (e.g., inclusion of all affected parties, non-coercion, symmetry of participation) rather than predefining moral outcomes.

   • The validity of norms depends on intersubjective recognition in an ideal speech situation, not on metaphysical or subjective preferences.

4. Contrast with Kant’s Formalism:

   • While Kant’s formalism is monological (individual reasoning), Habermas’s is dialogical (dependent on communicative rationality).

   • For Habermas, moral validity arises from real or hypothetical discourse, not just individual rational reflection.

5. Legal Formalism in Between Facts and Norms:

   • In his political theory, Habermas discusses the formal properties of law—its generality, abstractness, and neutrality—while insisting that legitimate law must also emerge from democratic procedures (deliberative democracy).

   • Law’s formalism ensures predictability and fairness, but its legitimacy depends on procedural legitimacy (citizens’ participation in lawmaking).

Criticisms and Clarifications:

• Some critics argue that Habermas’s formalism is too abstract and lacks concrete guidance.

• However, Habermas defends it as necessary to avoid paternalism while ensuring norms are justifiable to all under free and equal conditions.

Conclusion:

For Habermas, formalism means a procedural, discourse-based approach to morality and law, where validity is determined by the structure of rational communication rather than predefined values. It is a way to reconcile universalizability with pluralism in modern societies.

Deep Seek