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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005