Work #1500 · Late period

Reason in the Age of Science

Gadamer's 1981 essays on hermeneutics, technology, and practical philosophy

Hans-Georg Gadamer · 1981 · English (essays translated from German originals 1965-1979) · Essay collection

Tradition: Philosophical hermeneutics / practical philosophy / philosophy of science and technology

Gadamer's 1981 essays — practical philosophy and hermeneutical reflection in the technological age

Published by MIT Press in 1981 in their Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought series, 'Reason in the Age of Science' collects Gadamer's late essays on the place of hermeneutical reflection in the age of technology and science. Translated and edited by Frederick G. Lawrence, the volume gathers essays composed across 1965-1979 — the period after 'Truth and Method' (1960) had established Gadamer's philosophical position and the period of the famous Gadamer-Habermas debate over ideology critique. Major essays include: 'What is Practice? The Conditions of Social Reason' (1974, on Aristotelian phronesis as model for practical reason); 'Hermeneutics as Practical Philosophy' (1972, on the practical-philosophical character of hermeneutics); 'Notes on Planning for the Future' (1965, on the technocratic illusion); 'The Limits of the Expert' (1979, on the question of expertise in modern democracy); 'On the Philosophical Element in the Sciences and the Scientific Character of Philosophy' (1971); 'Hermeneutics and Social Science' (1975, the centrepiece of the Habermas-Gadamer engagement); 'Theory, Technology, Practice: The Task of the Science of Man' (1972); and 'Heidegger and the Greeks' (1972). Together the essays extend the Truth-and-Method programme into the philosophical conversations of the 1970s — particularly the debate with critical theory (Habermas), the philosophical critique of technocracy, and the broader Aristotelian-phronetic alternative to scientistic-technocratic reason. The book established Gadamer's mature position on contemporary social-philosophical questions and remains the principal English-language source for his late practical-philosophical work.

Author

Editions cited

  • Reason in the Age of Science, trans. and ed. Frederick G. Lawrence (MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1981)
  • Original essays in Gadamer's Kleine Schriften (J. C. B. Mohr, Tübingen, 1967-77, 4 vols) and Gesammelte Werke (Mohr/Siebeck, 1985-95, 10 vols)
  • Companion volumes: Philosophical Hermeneutics (UC Press, 1976); The Relevance of the Beautiful (Cambridge, 1986)
  • Critical context: Jean Grondin, The Philosophy of Gadamer (Acumen, 2003); Robert J. Dostal (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer (Cambridge, 2002)

School Embodiments

Hermeneutics · 26%
Philosophy of Science · 18%
Virtue Ethics · 16%
Philosophy of Language · 12%
Critical Theory · 12%
Humanism · 16%
Continental Philosophy · 8%

Mature hermeneutical-practical philosophy.

"Hermeneutical reflection is the form of reason proper to the age of science." (Reason in the Age of Science, essay 1)

Critique of scientism — defence of practical-philosophical reason.

"Science cannot be the whole of reason." (Reason in the Age of Science, essay 3)

Defining late-Gadamer development of phronesis as the hermeneutical-practical concept.

"Phronesis is the form of knowing that survives the technologisation of reason." (Reason in the Age of Science, on practical philosophy)

Language as the medium of hermeneutical-practical reason.

"Dialogue is the form of practical reason." (Reason in the Age of Science, on language)

Engagement with the Habermas-Gadamer debate on ideology critique.

"Habermas and hermeneutics need each other." (Reason in the Age of Science, response to Habermas)
Humanism 16%

Defending humanistic practical reason against technological closure.

"The humanistic tradition is not yet exhausted." (Reason in the Age of Science, essay 1)

Continental-philosophical tradition.

Internal Tensions

Late-Gadamer's most political book — hermeneutics versus technological closure of reason. The Aristotelian-phronetic alternative to scientistic reason has been continuously productive in subsequent philosophical work (MacIntyre's After Virtue 1981, Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self 1989, the broader virtue-ethics revival).

I. Time

1981 publication; essays composed 1965-1979. Gadamer was 81 at publication, having retired from active university teaching in 1968 but remaining philosophically productive into his nineties.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Grain: Continuous Freedom: NDet Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Heidelberg — Gadamer's institutional base since 1949 (his chair he held until 1968 retirement, after which he continued to live and write in Heidelberg until his 2002 death at age 102).

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Relational Curvature: Curved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Essay collection (~180 pages). Form is sustained philosophical-essayistic; each essay treats a distinct contemporary topic.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Relational Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

Mid-to-late Gadamer. The observer-philosopher is at the height of his international influence (Truth and Method had been published in English in 1975) and engaged with the contemporary philosophical-political debates of the 1970s.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Mediate Knowledge Retainment: Limited Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Synthesising-explanatory energies. The essays consolidate Gadamer's positions and extend them into contemporary debates.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Essay collection from the late 1960s and 1970s. The Habermas-debate essays ('Hermeneutics and Social Science', etc.) are the most contemporaneously-relevant material.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Relational Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Hans-Georg Gadamer Jürgen Habermas Alasdair MacIntyre

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How Reason in the Age of Science resolves each dilemma

48 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 13 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 9 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas, all mainstream

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is the ledger of obligations among real people.
On relational views, money is not a substance you have; it is a record of who owes whom what. Debts and credits are real because the relations they track are real — to kin, to community, to ancestors, to land. Money is the form this …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · “Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people.
On relational views, the nation is the relational fabric — extended kinship, ancestral inheritance, shared ecology, communal practice — that hosts a people across generations. Borders matter less than belonging; lineage and land carry the weight that political structures only ratify.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · “Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition.
On relational views, identity is not a property a person has alone; it is constituted by the web of recognition the person sits in. What makes someone a man or a woman in any thick sense is the relations of kinship, community, ritual, and recognition …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (54%) · Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) · “Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric.
On relational views, what makes someone a person is the web of kinship, ancestry, and community they sit in — not a property the body carries alone. Heritable editing intervenes in exactly this fabric: the lineage that ancestors handed on, the descent that descendants will …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (54%) · The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other. (16%) · 'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (33/202)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance.
On this view, matter is not a stuff but a patterning — the standing relations among things, ancestors, processes, and places. The creatio-ex-nihilo question doesn't quite arise, because the ontology has no slot for a free-standing substance to be created or eternal. What persists is …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (55%) · Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing. (23%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
2 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation.
On relational views, person was never the name of a thing that exists on its own — it is the name of a node in a web of recognition, obligation, kinship, and ecology. The question of when a being becomes a person is the question …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (54%) · A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. (16%) · The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates.
On relational views, marriage is not a thing in itself but a node in a web — a configuration of obligations to children, extended kin, ancestors, ecology, and community. Its definition is what the network of relations is, and any attempt to specify it apart …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (54%) · Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it. (16%) · “Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world.
On these views, humans were never outside nature, and the question of our 'place in' it is the question of how to live within the relations that already constitute us. Plants, animals, rivers, ancestors, descendants are not resources or stage scenery; they are kin and …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (48%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Subject to a real natural order we did not make. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking.
On relational views, space colonisation is the abstract endpoint of the same pattern that produced ecological crisis on Earth: humans treating themselves as separate from the more-than-human world they are actually inside. To go to Mars in the spirit of leaving Earth is to leave …
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (48%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Nature includes its limits; colonisation is bounded by what the cosmos allows. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (30/202)
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination?
Editing the genomes of the plants and animals we eat is either the natural continuation of breeding — careful improvement of what is given — or a category error that treats biology as raw material rather than as living kind.
Editing the genome cuts into the relational fabric; we should be very slow.
On relational views, organisms are not isolated substrates whose genomes can be edited without consequence; they are nodes in webs of mutual constitution with soils, ecologies, ancestors, and human cultivars. Genetic editing changes the node in ways the web has not had time to integrate. …
Roads not taken Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. (48%) · What counts as a 'natural' genome is itself a construction. (15%) · Biology is what it is; we modify it within real biological constraints. (12%)
26 mainstream positions
What happens to "you" when you die? You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. 18% Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog. 28% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge. 28% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply. 28% Could an AI have a mind that matters? An AI’s standing is constituted by the relations it enters. 15% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? An animal's standing is constituted by its place in the relational fabric. 11% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? The organoid's standing is constituted by the relations of care around its production. 11%
6 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1499 The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy All Works #1501 Speech and Phenomena →