File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1998/bhaskar.9805, message 102


Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 09:47:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca>
Subject: BHA: habermas


Man o man am I sorry I brought Habermas into this!

Colin, you wrote:

>...but this is different from the original claim that the asserter must be
>committed to his/her assertion.

I thought we'd got this cleared up!  The point for Habermas -- which I only
mentioned because it seemed like a curious inverse of the deflationary
position -- is not, not, not, *NOT* that nobody ever lies.  Or is ironic.
Or does all *sorts* of things with language, other than honestly assert
things.  
Not, not, not!

The argument, as I understand it, is *rather* that the use of language to
honestly and straightforwardly assert things is *logically* prior, and
necessarily so, to other uses.  Quite a hefty claim, and not necessarily a
valid one, but nothing in there about any given speaker, and whether we
should take her at her word (no pun intended).

Yes?

R.




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005