Date: 	Tue, 3 Mar 1998 15:14:12 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: The ethic of discussion and the problem of time


On Tue, 3 Mar 1998 08:21:11 -0500  Stephen Chilton wrote:

> I think this does not take heed of H's specific, direct 
argument (in MCCA) for discourse ethics:  the argument based 
on performativecontradiction.

I think Habermas's idea of the performative contradiction is a 
logical fallacy (begging the question).  It has no credibility.

>  That argument has no essentialist features;  or
> rather, one has to demonstrate that H's one of the 
presuppositions of speech itself is essentialist.  H's 
anthropological speculations, however essentialist they are, 
don't seem to me to falsify his claims about the 
presuppositions of speech. 

But Habermas's anthropology is prescriptive and his analysis 
is not objective rather it is evaluative (following Horkheimer 
and Adorno I think it is possible to demonstrate that 
impartiality is a specific kind of partiality).  So his judgements 
about what it is to be human are based on what he thinks 
human beings should be - in contradiction to what human 
beings might actually be OR what human beings might want to 
be.  What if I don't want to be a vulcan?  Agnes Heller has 
done one of the best jobs looking at this.  I'll pull out the 
critique of both the perform contra and Hab's anthropology if 
you or Dag what to pursue the issue further.

cheers,
ken




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