Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:38:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> Subject: Re: BHA: Truth, Lies irony and In defense of Habermasian 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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005