Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:55:46 +0000
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). 

Where do I find some prescriptions about the relationship between 
Habermas and Adorno. This is important because I believe Adorna has 
some essentialist thought of the human being. I am thinking of his 
concept of "first nature" and his idea of nature's revenge in "The 
Dialectic of Enlightment" .  I beleive this  idea is veru difficult to observe in 
Habermas' works. Habermas seem to assert that  our original  nature is 
something that we have to overcome (following an essential idea in the 
enlightenment project ? ) I am very keen about response to this idea. 
There is no "originarism" in Habermas, but maybe an idea that  our first
human nature sustains the project of rationality.

Anyhow, I agree that impartiality is a specific form of partiality. 
Maybe we should describe it as "omnipartialitity" (Ronald M. 
Green193) It is a specific form because this kind of impartiality 
demands empathic response and an informed mind where the voice of all 
parts must be taken into considereatin. It recalls the christian idea 
that rationalirty must be informed by love .

 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.

You are touching a reseach project which have been "going on in my 
mind" for a long time. I wopuld be glad for references and to pursue 
the issue further.
 
Thanks

DAG


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


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