Subject: Re: HAB: RE: habermas and brandom
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:19:28 GMT


Dear List,

Sorry to retrace this thread a little, but Ken's earlier comment (I think he 
made) that we take part in ongoing dialogue to reach understanding precisely 
because we don't understand, and this understanding gap is filled by the 
imaginary. It's the 'filling' of this gap prior to a communicative response 
where things get interesting. It seems far too determinate to suggest that 
this gap is filled - as it were - by the lifeworld. It  makes us too much 
into social-linguistic zombies. Perhaps the dogma of autonomy is not so 
dogmatic afterall.

Has Habermas augmented his theory of argumentation with a theory of 
agreement anywhere? And, if so, to what extent is it framed by the 
agree-to-disagree scenario (arrived at in part because of the gaps in 
understanding) where the pragmatic urgency of the situation i.e getting on 
with the social action under consideration takes precedence? Of course an 
agreement to disagree is still an agreement, but it does appear to suggest 
questions to do with the practical limits of discourse brought on in part by 
the reconstructions of subjectivity suggested by Antti and Ken.

MattP



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



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