Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:31:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: HAB: Understanding




On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:

> Habermas's particular vision of a more utopian world is 
> Kantian.  It is one in where contradictions do not exist (he 
> really does rely upon 'generalized other' - something that I 
> really don't want to become.

I really don't know why you attribute this view to Habermas.  As far as I
understand him, differences are not (necessarily) to be eliminated, but
respected and understood.  Of course, in any society, there are some
differences which must be overcome and will be overcome in any event--and
the question is whether to overcome them strategically or communicatively.

>  Adorno envisioned a different 
> kind of reconciliation - one where contradictions co-existed in 
> a non-antagonistic relationship.

Not all contradictions can peacefully co-exist.  On the other hand, I
think you're most likely to achieve peaceful co-existence, as far as
possible, among people with contradictory outlooks if they take up
communicative rather than strategic attitudes toward one another.

>  My question is this - why 
> noncontradiction as THE rational sum of any possible moral 
> life.  I wouldn't recognize myself under these conditions.  Why 
> would I want to work toward such a sterile model?  My identity 
> is made possible by contradictions.  Why should I strive to 
> eliminate them (and thereby eliminating the possibility of me).

If you're going to advise people to forget trying to understand your
contradictory views, then they might be inclined to exclude you from
positions of social esteem or throw you in jail (if your views are not
among the dominant ones) or to throw bombs at you (if your views are among
the dominant ones).  At any rate, people who do not understand you
are going to be more inclined to try to eliminate the threat that your
difference poses to them.
 
> > It sounds like you're saying that trying to understand each 
> other brings with it the danger that we will discover that we 
> have apparently irreconcilable differences, and this is 
> potentially devastating.  To which I would say:  yes, but not 
> nearly so devastating as not trying to understand each other 
> at all.
> 
> It is a risk either way.

You know, notwithstanding what I've been saying in this thread, I agree
with you that the kind of risks you're talking about are present in
Habermas.  I agree with you that there is a great danger in accepting
Habermas with open arms.  But ultimately, I should think that, in general, 
the risk of open warfare of all against all outweighs any other risk.
YMMV.... (I do not doubt, however, that there are many individuals for
whom there are worse fates--who are presently subject to worse fates--than
being caught up in a war of all against all, and thus for whom there are
more pressing problems than achieving and sustaining social solidarity. 
This is why I think that one ought to accept Habermas cautiously--in fact,
my sympathies lie with those individuals, and that is why I spend more
time thinking about Foucault than about Habermas).

Matthew

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
        "There is but one truly important philosophical problem,  
      and that is suicide."  (Albert Camus, _The Myth of Sisyphus_)  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Matthew A. King  ----  Department of Philosophy  ----  McMaster University



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