File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2001/habermas.0102, message 83


From: Vunch-AT-aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:02:59 EST
Subject: Re: HAB: re: Thinking beyond the old Gadamer-Habermas debate


Ken, how are you reflecting Habermas'  understanding of communicative action, 
consensus, legitimacy, and justification in this blurb?

V.

In a message dated 2/22/01 8:28:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca writes:

> How exactly does one escape sheer paternalism here? "I'm sorry, are you a 
>  failed little subject, or just lacking cognitive resources?" Isn't this 
the 
>  slighest bit problematic? And isn't it even worse to say that a subject 
>  presupposes their incompetence whenever they speak? [the idea that we have 
>  idealizing tendencies *is* simultaneously a put down of what currently 
>  exists]. Also, what does a developed nation look like? Do we have any 
> empirical examples? If not, then what makes 'us' think that logic - 
idealizing, 
> immanent or otherwise, will guarantee us any non-regressive findings? I 
really don't 
> see how the existence of 'grammar' is much of a guarantee of anything.
> I can't help but think that there is a definite aesthetic-expressive moment 
>  that is engrained in Habermas's understanding of moral progress, one which 
> is unavoidably prepolitical - and, from within politics - highly 
contestable.


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005