Date: 	Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:41:56 -0400
From: "kenneth.mackendrick" <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca>
Subject: HAB: habermas's nihilism


to push the nihilism comments further....
i think habermas correctly notes a sociological deficit in the earlier frankfurt school 
by taking into consideration the processes of hermeneutics and communication - 
but he does so in such a way that he produces a cognitive defcit - which one can 
approach through the "romantic" works of marx (agnes heller), the hermeneutics of 
gadamer (as the casuist's might), adorno (j.m. bernstein), or hegel (benhabib).  this 
raises the shadow side of his idea of post-traditional ethic.  how can an ethic be 
post-traditional without loosing all of its contents?  the corrective, i think, lies within 
the notion that we articulate our views, without limits, from our understanding of 
ourselves and our traditions while acknowledging that these sources of our identity 
cannot simply be held as authoritative and unquestionable.  the arguments that are 
sure to follow then procede without appeals to authority or faith rather to "good 
reasons."  I'm not sure, however, where this leaves us.  to what extent is a 
consensus possible in real debate?  can language produce the kind of 
transparency that would allow us to generate good reasons out of our identity?  is 
the symmetry that is necessary for an open debate accessible within all traditions 
and identities that engage in a procedure of argumentation? this becomes 1. a 
probelm of WHAT language can articulate within history and 2. HOW formal can 
discourse be without distorting its' participants by forcing them to speak in a 
symmetrical way...
ken




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