Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 12:09:38 +0100
Subject: HAB: Again Habermas and time


Hello
  Thank you to all those who answered to my message : "the ethic of
discussion and the problem of time"
  I'd like to clarify some points of my last e-mail; I've the feeling
that its general meaning was misunderstood.
  The foundation by reason of the moral must necessary (according to me)
be composed of two moments:
  1) Show that there is an "ideal speech situation" and that any
conclusion resulting from a discussion in conformity with this "ideal
speech situation" is rational; so that any norm resulting from such a
discussion will be founded by reason.
But it would be worthless alone! Some problems have no solution at all,
and Habermas'aim was to refute scepticism (according to which, moral
problems have no rational solution).
  2) So we must also show that such discussions exist or could exist!
How do we know that an ideal speech situation would have any conclusion
at all? In other words, the discussion, even ideal, could go on forever;
each member could give always new reasons, that he believes to be
irrefutable, or, on the contrary, it may be that none of them can give
any reason to justify their will, although they both are convinced to be
within their right. How do we know that practical problems have any
solution at all?

  The only answer is FACT! We experiment everyday that such discussions
exist, it is to say, that people whose purposes are different can finaly
agree, after a good discussion.
  As a consequence, all the habermasian argumentation relies on a
"factum rationis", something we can only notice and not prove!!
  I don't deny that such agreements exist, but I think that such
agreements are possible if and only if the discussion is not ideal. This
is the distance between the ideal and the real discussions which makes
the agreement possible.

  I can't prove it, but I challenge anyone to give me one discussion
which leads to a totaly rational conclusion.
  On the contrary, I can provide two non strategic nor rational ways to
explain agreement in a discussion.
  1) The members of the discussion have an instinctive or cultural sense
of justice...The discussion is a mean by which this "pre-comprehension"
is revealed, but the common conception of justice...is not itself
rational.
  2) The members of the discussion have no common instinctive or
cultural sense of justice...(or it's helpless for THIS particular
situation). Here the discussion could be endless. But a practical
discussion isn't a theorical one. At a certain point, we must stop
talking and act. So the members of the discussion are forced to find a
compromise, not a consensus. This isn't rational because the solution is
due only to the fact that the discussion is limited by time, and, as a
consequence is not ideal.

  I think we can explain all the agreements in any non-strategic
discussion by these two non-rational ways. As a consequence, the "factum
rationis" doesn't exist, and there is no rational solution to any
practical problem; we can't found the moral by reason.

  I've just clarified my last e-mail, particulary the problem of time.
The fact that the practical discussion are always limited by time is not
an argument to show that, although ideal speech situation could lead to
rational conclusions, real discussion can't because they're limited by
time. ON THE CONTRARY! Ideal speech situation can't lead to any solution
to practical dilemmas, but real discussions can, BECAUSE they are
limited by time!!



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