Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 12:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary E Davis <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HAB: A Genealogical Analysis of the Cognitive Content of Morality:  A Rejoinder



--- Kenneth MacKendrick <kenneth.mackendrick-AT-utoronto.ca> wrote:
> Gary requested that I work on something short and contextual, so I
> did. 

Actually, I requested that you make a specific critical point well,
in an evidentiary manner, before going on to sweeping statements. I
thought it was time for careful arguments to be made in critique. If
you read Habermas as closely as I read your emails (splitting them
into immanent dialogal response), you readings would--I believe--
undermine themselves rather quickly.  

> Here is a review, which is inadequate in several instances (I
> decided to 
> take today off and write this up), of the first chapter of The
> Inclusion of 
> the Other, "A Genealogical Analysis of the Cognitive Content of
> Morality." 

This is a very good choice! But I see that you've also entered your
view of the "Employments" essay, which should be considered prior to
the genealogical analysis (as the important prior discussion of moral
reason). So, it makes sense to me to focus on that first. However, my
discussion with Antti will take precedence, since that one began
before your posting (even so, I don't have time to soon focus on the
"Employments" essay vis-a-vis Antti's comments, so I don't know when
I'll get to yours, which I *do* want to do, since I want an
"Employments" discussion very much ). Also, I would prefer to discuss
Habermas's recent essay on general genealogical issues (mentioned a
couple of days ago), before discussing genealogy of specifically
moral issues. 

Moreover, I take issue with your "genealogy" discussion almost
immedidately. To wit:

>....
> 
> To frame this psychoanalytically  which by no means contradicts
> what 
> Habermas intends here  the third person perspective corresponds to
> the 
> superego ("me"); the second person to the alter (the "other"); and
> the 
> first person to the ego (the "I") [TCA II, 41].


But such a frame *does* contradict what Habermas intends. You're
substituting a focus on intrapsychical processes for a context
dealing with actual intersubjectivity (not virtual intersubjectivity)
and concerns about impartiality. "Framing" Habermas's opening context
psychoanalytically is framing him in the worst sense. 

Regards,

Gary




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com


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