Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:18:26 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: Fallibilism as concept vs. notion
From: Martin Blanchard <tintamar-AT-club-internet.fr>


Gary:

Let me try this. I don't have much time and can elaborate more later.

Concept = what we strive to define

Notion = a definition of a concept that becomes historical

The name of a concept = what we use to identify a concept, but this is not
the concept itself. For example, (some here might recognize this) DOORKNOB
is the name that we give to the concept of a doorknob, but it is only a
syntactic symbol that does not describe the content of DOORKNOB.


So what about fallibilism?

I read somewhere (I think it was Jean-Marc Ferry) that Apel would not accept
that the concept FALLIBILISM is itself fallible: there is nothing beyond or
over that concept that would assure us of the fallibility/infallibility of
that concept. To put it another way, in your words,

> Doesn't fallibility always imply openness
> to a future need for revision (vs. present need for revision)?

Would mean, in Apel's words: the "always imply" is a sign that we can't go
over and above FALLIBILISM.

Now we sure strive to define FALLIBILISM. We try to make a notion out of it,
something that has a particular historical content and will satisfy certain
functions, etc. And the resulting notion is itself revisable, defeasible or
fallible.

I won't engage in the controversy of fallibilism vs. defeasibility, but I
sure will read Bill's post and your reply to it. I think you're on to
something.

But I hope these above definitions didn't mess things up...


Yours,

Martin B


( PS. : for example, the Ancient Greeks didn't have the notion of
"existence" as we use it, but they sure had the concept EXISTENCE, judging
from their use of "ousia" and other words...)



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