Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 01:20:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Kerry <macdonak-AT-Meena.CC.URegina.CA>
Subject: Re: General Question




On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, J.L. Nicholas wrote:

> Here's my point, and perhaps I need to read something more, but it seems
> that from an evolutionary perspective, lanbgauge need not have evolved as a
> means of understanidng, but as all things do, a means for survivial.  It
> does not follow that if I am using langauge to be controlling or strategic
> I must presume that langauage is aboiut understanding.  If we all have the
> same understanding of langauge, that is, that it is about strategy, then we
> all know we all are lying, anyway, and we just play a game with our lives
> trying to outmaneuver each other.  Even so, we don't all have to have the
> same understanding.  One great means of strategy is to convince most people
> that by using langauge I am trying to reach understanding.  This way, I can
> control with lanaguage and they won't realize it.  SO, I don't see that
> Habermas' argument works.  Rather, in pre-history we all used lnaguage to
> control.  Btu someone came along and revolutionized our values so that we
> are conjcerned aboutTruth and Justice.  What a power ploy!


I think you've missed his point.  It is because language is essentially 
about coming to an understanding that allows for one to be strategic.  
(Also understanding does  not necessarily lead to agreement.)  Language 
is the medium that is used to convince people and therefore yes to have 
control over them.  One of the main motivations for his work has been to 
attempt to come to understand the phenomena of his country's past - Nazi 
Germany.

He wants to establish a foundation which legitmates critique and avoids 
being labeled relativistic.  By establishing language as a process which 
is about reaching understanding then, he argues, that there is an 
implicit ethic involved.  By having this ethic (discourse ethic) then 
critique of a "norm" because for a norm to be valid it must "meet with 
the consent of all affected in their role as particpants in a practical 
discourse".

He isn't arguing that because language is grounded in understanding that 
understanding exists.  But rather because of the nature of understanding 
anb because people are networked in socio-cultural-communicative-action 
webs (society) one can legitmately call into question those 
norms/values/etc. that aren't valid as described above.

He is attempting to establish that one can say "that is wrong, 
categorically!"  Now one must realize what is wrong will vary over both 
time and space, but what is constant about what makes something wrong is 
how it affects those it affects.

It is the way that his discourse ethics works that allows one to critique.

Personally I don't have a problem with his arguements it's just that I 
don't think he actually accomplishes anything.   Given  that "(U) For a 
norm to be VALID, the consequences and side effects of its general 
ovservance for the satisfaction of each person's particular interests 
must be ACCEPTABLE TO ALL" (my emphasis).  It is only through CONSTANT 
unanimous consent that a norm can be valid.  Therefore one person's 
disagreement invalidates the norm.

Critique may have a foundation but I don't think we've actually gained 
anything.   He has shown that something can't be ethical if it is 
imposed, however, this also leads to that no sanction can be imposed, 
which is ethical, without the consent of the one being sanctioned.

Warmest regards,
Kerry