In this chapter, I formulate a series of systematic philosophical questions raised by themes Honneth discusses in his 2017 article “Is There an Emancipatory Interest? An Attempt to Answer Critical Theory’s Most Fundamental Question.” The first one concerns the tension between autonomy and heteronomy: how far can or should the emancipatory process proceed, what aspects of social dependency must remain, and which ones should be left behind? The second question has to do with the potential reach of the kind of immanentist argumentation strategy that Honneth articulates in his paper: how far is it possible to get with socially transformative goals by relying on re-interpretations of already existing and established norms? The third issue concerns normative criteria and recognitional goals: where do the concrete evaluative standards for talking about legitimate expectations, appropriate recognition, or progressive and regressive changes come from? The fourth question has to do with the supposed contrast between ideal political philosophy and contemporary recognition theory: if we do operate with genuine ideals and provisional end-states, as Honneth does, then how should we understand the assumed distinction? I then conclude the chapter by considering some of the potentially fruitful research connections between pragmatism, naturalism, and critical theory.