Subject: HAB: Re: Fallibilism as concept vs. notion
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 08:56:29 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)



On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:21:07  matthew piscioneri <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com> 
wrote:

> If linguistic meanings are constructs of social usage (Wittgenstein); and 
> paradigmatic social usage is an class-relevant ideological construct (Marx), 
> then what emancipatory outcomes exactly can we expect from communicative 
> action given its intrinsic dependency upon the master's & mistress's 
> language?

Hope it is ok if I butt in. Dependency upon language is what Habermas charges 
hermeneutics with. Habermas argues, against hermeneutics, that theoretical 
inquiry lifts us out of dogmatic dependency on language.

> Perhaps JH really did say it all in 1965 in his comment on language as what 
> lifts us out of Nature. Critical echoes of Horkheimer's & Adorno's poetic 
> notion of a total reconciliation with Nature. Linguistic practice is 
> always/already a medium of domination. So who do we give up first? 
> Wittgenstein, Marx or Habermas :-)?

A lot has been written about Habermas and nature (Vogel, Honneth, Whitebook, 
and most recently Martin Morris, come immediately to mind). Habermas's 
understanding of reconciliation of subject-subject, it is not a reconciliation 
with nature. I wouldn't even say that there is an echo.

ken



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