Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:47:31 -0600
From: Scott Johnson <sjohn-AT-cp.duluth.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Habermas and Emotions


Ken wrote:

"2. what about aspects of humanality that resist being translated into
reason and 
discourse.  how does one deal with dissent.  dissent not based on
"winning" 
reasons (this point has been raised by Jeffery) but based sheerly on
dissent - the 
option of saying if not screaming "NO!!! - this is unacceptable""

Even if you can't define well what it is that bothers you about this or
that of my actions, you should have something to say when asked "why do
you care"? If you find something unacceptable but you can't say how it
affects you at all, are you better than the stereotypical "bluenose" who
wants to define for everyone what is good and what not? If you don't
like it and but it doesn't affect you, I can't see how you could deny
someone the right of dissent from your own likes and dislikes. If,
however, you are affected in a real way, you should at least be able to
articulate the experience where it occurred to you in order that it can
be determined how indeed you are affected. If you can't produce
something, why should I listen to you any more than I should listen to
anyone who wants to tell me what to do? Can I say no to you and proceed
with my actions, which are after all, what I want to do? You can scream
no for yourself, but you need a reason to scream no for me, in order for
me to take your objection to my actions as being not external to my will
and an imposition, but as something I can understand.

Scott