Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:26:42 -0800 (PST) From: Gary <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com> Subject: HAB: Re: formal pragmatics --- matthew piscioneri <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear List, > > I am a very recent member (23/3)posting in from the University of > Tasmania, > Australia. My doctoral research program is focusing upon Habermas's > formal > pragmatics specifically in the TCA. It is my intention to discuss > the > implications for Habermas's more global themes in the TCA, of > arguing for a > wholly pragmatised theory of meaning; i.e one that dispenses with a > formal > component. The basis of my argument will be worked out of > Habermas's central > employment of Wittgenstein/Austin/Searle, that i.m.o, can leave > space for > any Fregean/Davidsonian semantic formalism. My question is,if this > line > could be satisfactorily argued for;.... Greetings, Matthew Piscioneri! You want to dispense with "a" (any?) formal component, but "leave space for "any...formalism"? Why would you want to do that? What's wrong with a pragmatics being formal, in Habermas's sense of this (as explicated in "What is Universal Pragmatics?" and his theory of discourse ethics)? What's the difference between your sense of the "formal" in formal pragmatics (your "Habermas")and "formalism" (your "Davidson")? Do you really mean that you wish to give Habermas' pragmatics a *different* formal component than his own, viz., a Fregean / Davidsonian one? What do you mean by a "wholly pragmatised theory of meaning" that is adverse to Habermas' theory of meaning, which (one might argue) is already wholly pragmatic (in a sense that yields to reconstructive scientific discourse)? You are not optimistic that Habermas' own sense of discursive basis is tendable? >...what if any are the > consequences for the > rest of Habermas's themes in the TCA? The "rest"? You mean, like: the entire theory of social evolution? Or are you just referring to the theory of communicative action as such, inasmuch as it is articulated in _TCA_? But the Theory there is itself in evolution (evolving as theory and part of a theory of social evolution), since Habermas has enriched his sense of communicative action, one might claim, in succeeding work, published with the re-print of "What is Universal Pragmatics?" in _The Pragmatics of Communication_ (MIT 1999). That is, the formulations of commuicative action in TCA might (should?) be read as anticipating what later work has elaborated, such that Habermas' pragmatics should be read in light of work in the 20 years since TCA--just in respect to the sense of communicative action within TCA, not to mention the "rest of Habermas' themes in the TCA." Or: Do you believe that TCA stands as Habermas' basis, by which later work should be evaluated? So,...onward Best regards, Gary __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005