In dialogue with Jürgen Habermas
Truth as a relational phenomenon and empathy as an act of Love
Introduction: truth as relational awakening
Truth. A word that for centuries in Western philosophy was understood as something universal, objective, independent of experience or context. But for me, truth is not a cold, abstract category. Truth is an event, a process, a relational awakening. Not a possession, but an encounter. Not a weapon, but an act of love.
This vision resonates, perhaps surprisingly, with the thinking of Jürgen Habermas — a philosopher who focuses precisely on the conditions under which truth can reveal itself: in open, honest dialogue. His theory of communicative rationality therefore forms a fruitful foundation for my own intuition that empathy and truth are deeply connected.
The bridge: from strategic action to open encounter
In his work, Habermas distinguishes between strategic and communicative action. Strategic action is aimed at success: the other is seen as a means to an end. Communicative action, by contrast, seeks mutual understanding. It presupposes equality, honesty, openness, and a willingness to be touched by the better argument. In this kind of dialogue, Habermas says, truth can emerge — not as an absolute given, but as intersubjective validity.
It is precisely this space of open encounter where I see truth arise.
When we do not entrench ourselves in our rightness, but dare to be vulnerable.
When we do not merely transmit, but listen.
When we approach the other not as an object of persuasion, but as a subject of meaning.
The ideal conversation situation as an ethical horizon
Habermas speaks of the ideal speech situation, a hypothetical framework in which people are free from coercion, speak honestly, respect each other’s claims to validity, and are willing to revise their opinions. In this atmosphere of openness, truth can emerge.
What Habermas describes here, I see as an ethical practice of empathy — because anyone who truly wants to listen must be prepared to set themselves aside for a moment, to let the other in, without immediately judging or correcting.
In my philosophy, empathy is not an emotion or a social skill, but an act of love: the courage to be present with the other, with discomfort, with not-knowing. That attitude — of open attunement — is nothing other than what Habermas calls communicative rationality.
Truth as relational resonance
Where Habermas defines truth as the outcome of honest and open dialogue between equals, I add an existential layer: truth as something we feel resonate. A truth that is not only established, but also touches us — a truth that presents itself in the tension between I and you, between the inner and outer world. Truth as vibration, as a mutually attuned presence.
In this sense, empathy is not merely a bridge to truth, but its embodiment.
Empathy is truth in action: the willingness not to fixate, but to feel.
Not to convince, but to meet.
Not to possess, but to share.
Politics and care as places of truth
The implications of this vision are profound. If truth arises in the space between people, then politics becomes something relational. Democracy is no longer the sum of individual opinions, but the creation of spaces for dialogue in which truth can shine. Care is no longer the application of interventions, but the act of being present with the other — exactly as empathy requires. Education is no longer the transmission of knowledge, but an invitation to dialogue, to self-realization in relationship.
In all these domains, the following holds true:
A truth that is not felt, is not carried.
A truth that is not shared, is not experienced.
A truth that is not encountered, remains empty.
A metamodern clarification
With his theory, Habermas offers a powerful alternative to both the rigidity of modernism and the relativism of postmodernism. He believes that truth is possible — but only if the conditions of openness, honesty, and mutual recognition are met.
This vision resonates deeply with metamodernist thinking, in which we oscillate between knowing and not-knowing, between reason and feeling, between individual and community.
In this field of tension, a new truth arises:
Not absolute knowledge, but a vulnerable, shared attunement.
Not dogma, but dialogue.
Not certainty, but presence.
Conclusion: truth as an act of love
Habermas’ dialogical reason and my philosophy of empathy meet in a shared conviction: truth does not arise in the isolation of thought, but in the openness of conversation. In that sense, truth is never purely rational — it is always also relational. Always also embodied. And ultimately: always also loving.
Truth is the willingness to remain present.
To be touched.
To stay in dialogue, even when it becomes difficult.
This makes truth not a possession, but a practice. Not a status, but an invitation. An invitation to loving openness. To empathic resonance. To a way of being that refuses to reduce the other, and keeps seeking attunement to what is true.
That is the truth I believe in. The truth that does not end with a full stop, but with a comma —
and says: tell me who you are, so that I may remember myself in your eyes.
