Western Philosophy Shorts Jürgen Habermas Public Sphere and Communicative Action

As we continue the series on Western Philosophy Shorts, we consider Jurgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action as a new definition of Reason, no longer treating Reason as the ability for an individual Cartesian mind to think abstract truths but instead as the proper use of language to allow a whole society to use communication to reach a consensus without coercion by abstracting away from all social fetishism markers to treat every person as an equally capable user of language and nothing more.

0:49 Individual Reason vs. Communicative Rationality
2:34 Private Sphere Court of King vs. Public Sphere Coffee House
6:21 Clarifying the Difference Among Spheres of Communication
12:26 Adorno vs. Habermas, Instrumental Rationality vs. Communicative Rationality

Disclaimer: This video is for educational purposes alone
Support me for just 2 dollars per month:

[chadahaagphilosophychannel]

0:49 Individual Reason vs. Communicative Rationality
2:34 Private Sphere Court of King vs. Public Sphere Coffee House
6:21 Clarifying the Difference Among Spheres of Communication
12:26 Adorno vs. Habermas, Instrumental Rationality vs. Communicative Rationality

[williamgass]

Turning into the masses makes us all pop-R-tarts.

[brorium]

One issue i have, and it might stem from a misunderstanding, is the assumption that people are just "less rational" because of their inability to speak in public places. Sure; the discourse in different societal stratas were more cut off from each others back in the day, but that doesn't mean that the actual rational work and reasoning wasn't pursued - what differs from today is merely which assumptions one holds about the world and ones tools to orient in it.

Take science for example. If we assume that scientific method tells us something about the Real, then well, you're shit out of luck as there is no proof that "things as themselves" actually exist outside of the phenomenon that are detected. On the other hand, if you view science as a study on phenomenon, then you also imply that science is a self-referring system that can include empiricism and rationality, but said empiricism will be referring to human faculties. Science might have proven itself to be "more pragmatic" - but that's also under the assumption that the/a trajectory science sets us on is "pragmatic" in "accordance relevant parameters whatever those may be" - which is, again, a phenomenological assertion to make.

Now compare that to paganism or Asatru; If there is lightning, i'll assume that Thor is "active", and i can reason on that point with my fellow oarsmen or peers. I can build a system of meaning that seems entirely coherent on these assumptions without any rationality suffering. Empiric experiments might have made me change my view on Thor, but the assumption that Thor is somehow connected to lightning (however obfuscated that "truth" might become during centuries of discourse) would still be made coherent because that is my whole assumption.
The whole "entry point into rationality" has to be an assumption, based on the assumption (heh) that systems of beliefs are self-referring and self-contained. The discourse might be suffering because of the spheres of communication, but wouldn't it merely be a question of time or effectiveness rather than prevelance at all?

I don't know if this is pretty much is the point Kants critique, but i don't really see how Habermas positions himself to these questions.