File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2001/habermas.0112, message 19


Subject: HAB: Re: Bob Scheetz (re: this month's "samizdat")
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 22:11:54 -0500


> --- bob scheetz <rscheetz-AT-cboss.com> wrote:
>
> >...would it be possible, in the ideal court of discourse ethics, to
> entertain the righteousness of a 9/11 strategy?
>
> Would it be possible for you to interpret something in *terms of
> Habermas's work* or to share your engagement with his work or foster
> engagement?  Or is this just not possible for you?
>
> Show how your comment above is not about rationalizing pathological
> violence.

I think bob makes a valid and provocative point with respect to the
possibility that some points of view may be excluded by the nature of the
enterprise.  At the same time, these are points of view that we desperately
need to understand, whether or not we've ruled out the possibility that
violence may sometimes be necessary.

Besides, I rather prefer the slightly-off-topic rant to the endless and
unilluminating very-much-on-topic exegesis.  Chacun a son gout.

Deirdre Golash



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005