File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2000/habermas.0005, message 63


Subject: HAB: 2 Habermas ?s
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:31:23 PDT



Dear List,

Can I ask of you assistance on two points?

1. Where does Habermas (first) use the phrase 'ideal speech situation'?

2. Where is there discussion on Habermas's suggestion at the end of the TCA, 
re- the structures of the lifeworld becoming transparent because of the 
threat to its symbolic reproduction from the colonisation process?

I read this as an indication of his sympathy for a cybernetic model of 
social theory; i.e a crisis in the social world generating an ameliorative 
response in the form of a critical social theory etc, in this case 
Habermas's own theory of communicative action.

Best regards & thanks in anticipation

MattP




>From: Martin Blanchard <tintamar-AT-club-internet.fr>
>Reply-To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: HAB: RE: lifeworld and phenomenology
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:23:31 -0400
>
>Dear Mr. Heath;
>
>I thank you for your response. I have read some of your articles,
>especially the review of Cooke's _Language and Reason_, and I must
>say that I was impressed by your knowledge of what looked like deep
>issues in habermassian texts. I hope that, in my reply here, you will
>not be annoyed by my own short knowledge of Habermas' writings.
>
>Like Mr. Erik Davis, but maybe for different reasons, I was surprised
>by your following comment:
>
>
>>
>>My more general concern that is some unlucky person might come along, who
>>despite being well-versed in the relevant phenomenological writings, might
>>not be intimately acquainted with the writings of Talcott Parsons. Such a
>>person might, just might, become confused about the range of philosophical
>>issues that can be addressed fruitfully using Habermas's system/lifeworld
>>distinction. :)
>>
>
>
>What do you think is the range of philosophical problems that can't
>be addressed by Habermas' own distinction? Do you mean that a
>much-Talcott-inspired lifeworld doesn't encompass the whole domain
>of, say, culture? The result being that so-called "colonizations" of
>lifeworld by system could be only partial colonizations, the domain
>of "culture" having then a possibility of answering to these
>problems, contrary to what Habermas is saying. Or are you implying
>that the distinction itself is not that pertinent, so that there
>really is no colonization at all?
>
>My own and very faillible comment is that Habermas seems to be very
>suspicious about cultural legitimation, up to a point where he
>completely dismisses the possible force of reasonable cultural
>patterns. But on another level, he seems to be much aware of the
>consequences of his suspicion, and that is why he "nods" back to
>Husserl-Schutz-Luckmann.
>
>I hope I'm not distracting this conversation too much,
>
>
>Martin Blanchard
>University of Montreal
>
>
>     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005