From: <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca> Subject: HAB: "in the name of humanity" Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:13:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Hi Thom. Thanks for the post. I don't really have a specific response, which would have to be rather elaborate to say the least. But I'd like to think about the idea of universality, and maybe pry a couple questions about that. Habermas's understanding of communicative reason is a highly tentative model. I detect two stands in Habermas's work: the robust and the hesitant. With regards to the robust, Habermas makes strong universalist claims, and with the hesitant, he wavers and expresses uncertainty. In the past I've certainly taken Habermasian theory to task (successfully or not) on the robust part. However, and this is a general question, to what degree can we say that language itself, as a pragmatic performative, contains the seeds of a universalist ethic? Is this always the case. And, if this is the case, then what kind of subjectivity is necessary for this? Subjectivity by definition? by development? ... Habermas claims that pragmatically we are ethical creatures, and I'd like to think about what that means. Are we ethical/moral only to the degree that we can abstract from our circumstances and abide by rule-following / rule-creating behaviour? Because we speak, we are entwined with ethics. In TCA he claims this is linked to biology, but I don't think this is a good line of argument and I think his more recent writings sway in the direction of pragmatics to a greater degree. My research has lead me in the direction of Lacan's work, esp. his thoughts on the relation bewteen desire and language - which is quite different from Habermas's. I suspect that there is widespread agreement that more needs to be said about desire in the modern world and its role in ethical discourse and dialogue. For Lacan, speaking and ethics is very much tied up together, which is not unlike Habermas. But for Lacan, ethics is impossible. Is ethics impossible ('counterfactual') with Habermas as well? Sometimes I get the impression that it is. If I can reel it in: what does it mean (implicate) to say or do something "in the name of humanity" ? some rather stray thoughts, ken --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005