Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 19:20:37 -0600
From: Scott Everett Johnson <sjohn-AT-cp.duluth.mn.us>
Subject: Re: a & h and d of e


I've still got a response in the works for Ken's earlier response to me
which I have to finish, but I saw this recent post and had to chip in:

> > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
> > 
> > >      i've got three questions, stemming from my dis-satisfaction with 
> Habermas's 
> > > reading of a and h in d and e:
> > > 
> > > 1.  what gives adorno and horkheimer the "legitimacy" (for lack of a better term) 
> to pronounce reality as unreconciled (this harkens back to my comment about the 
> > > "magical dialectical wand.")
> 
> > Now, you need *evidence* that reality is 'unreconciled'?  REALLY?  As 
> > another list-member suggested, if this isn't an antagonistic reality, 
> > then I never want to see what *would* qualify.
> > 
> I'm wondering if the concept is inherently theological.  Does the idea of 
> reconciliation beg a theology of genesis and apocalypse (even though adorno 
> would surely reject this telos as nonsense).  To say that reality is unreconciled 
> implies an objective insight into reconcilation (to name = to transcend).  I'm worried 
> here about ideological christian baggage.  Reality certainly is antagonistic 
> (descrpitively) - but to say "unreconclied" seems problematic.


Surely you recognize that the concept of reconciliation is Hegelian. You
are right, Ken, to smell Christian theology. But Christian though the
concept of reconciliation is [Stephen Houlgate brings this out very well
in _Freedom, Truth, and History: An Introduction to Hegel's
Philosophy_], Hegel clearly gives priority to the concept of
reconciliation itself as the essence of Christianity. Thus, I don't
think it is necessarily theological. I certainly doesn't "beg a theology
of genesis and apocalypse", which is only ONE expression of the concept.
The meaning of reconciliation in reference to social life is explained
wonderfully in Michael Hardimon's _Hegel's Social Theory: The Project of
Reconciliation_. Essentially, the reconciliation refers to the
rationality of the social world, which should be such that it can be
reflectively appropriated as one's own--should be such that one can be
"at home" in it. What makes it rational is NOT that it conforms to some
standard which can be given, but that it be such that the reflective
experience of it not be alienating. I don't see a problem with using the
word "unreconciled"; in fact, the use of it should lead one, if I am
right, to Hegel. 
   You'll be hearing from me!

Scott Johnson
Duluth, MN