Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:36:28 -0400
From: "Peter G. Stillman" <stillman-AT-vassar.edu>
Subject: Re: HAB: Hab's method in BFN


I think that Matt P's unease -- My original unease stemmed from the
uncertainty
(I still have) over whether Habermas's _BFN_ is designed to state what *is*,
what *should* be or what *could* be !!! -- is both a very usual and an
interesting unease.  It seems to me that it is built on the assumption that
those (is, should, could) are *the* relevant distinctions, i.e., that we
should distinguish facts from values, and distinguish both from what is
possible in the future.

I think that a lot of the intellectual impetus of, e.g., Hegel and Marx was
to disagree with those distinctions and try to recast the project of
philosophy and social theory.  In one way or another, Hegel is, it seems to
me, trying to comprehend political reality in the Philosophy of Right in a
way that does not separate facts, values, and possibilities, but sees that
the (philosophical) means of comprehending the world (i) grows out of the
values and development of that world and (ii) shapes how we understand it.

In many ways, I think Habermas, through all his concerns, follows important
parts of that tradition.


Peter G. Stillman

office:  Rocky 204; office hours by appt.

Political Science Dept.
Vassar College (#463)
Poughkeepsie, NY, 12604-0463
845-437-5581; fax = 845-437-7599




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