File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2001/habermas.0102, message 43

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:57:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: HAB: Fallibilism as concept vs. notion

--- Martin Blanchard <> wrote:

> Is fallibilism a _concept_ itself not fallible (Apel) or is it
> more like a _notion_ in need of revision (Gary)?

Could you elaborate the question a little? Did you mean "
_concept_..."? Are you asking: Is the concept "fallibilism" an
Apelian issue or...? OR: Are you asking: Are concepts generally
("fallibilism" in particular) an Apelian issue? In either case, what
is the Apelian issue? Are you referring specifically to Habermas'
mention of Apel's principle of fallibilism in the discourse ethics
essay? What's your sense of the difference between concept and notion
that is being asked here? Are notions such that having a notion is
being in need of revision? Doesn't fallibility always imply openness
to a future need for revision (vs. present need for revision)? Aren't
concepts revisable, and isn't revisability largely an issue of
appropriateness rather than merely truth-functionality? Given the
usefulness of my earlier distinction (that you noted--thank you),
might your question be more appropriately asked about defeasibility? 



Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 
a year!

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005