Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:23:28 -0600
Subject: Re: HAB: Nietzsche's unanswered challenge to rationality


Tom, this post raises a number of difficult questions.  One way for us
to begin to approach them would be to use the text called "Some further
clarifications of the concept of communicative rationality" (1996) in On
the Pragmatics of Communication, pp. 307-342 (in English here for the
first time).  Have you read this text?  I think it is useful for
developing the concept of communicative rationality a little further.  

In particular, and to anticipate, Habermas there recognizes that
"rationality" is a composite of "entwined" elements, a "complex of
rationality structures," that correlate with kinds of action.  (H in
this essay also has some interesting things to say about kinds of
action.) This account of (positive) rationality is entirely compatible
with a nonreductive naturalism.

Bill Hord



Thomas McDonald wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> Are there scientific arguments that rationality is natural?
> 
> Even if a case can be made, would it be healthy for a society to see
> their rationality as naturally determined?
> 
> Rationality emerged from human traditions of resisting natural impulses
> and animal desires for the sake of abstract ideas about 'greater good.'
> 
> A social ideal of communicative rationality would expect, even demand
> that people should subordinate their inclinations to unruly, natural
> passions.
> 
> Although advocates of modernism like Habermas may remove the
> mythological aspects of the language, can he realistically deny that
> rationalization (as the resistance to irrational, natural impulses for
> the sake of abstracted ideals) is an extension of nature-resisting,
> transcendental religion as in the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian
> traditions?
> 
> Yet, if one proves that rationality is not 'supernatural' in origin,
> but has a scientifically provable basis in nature, does one not create
> the condition for desire to surpass it (since humans are historically
> inclined to surpass what is deemed to be naturally determined).
> 
> This could also be described as the unanswered challenge of Nietzsche.
> If rationality is not already a transcendence of the merely natural,
> then many (supermen?) will only see a challenge to transcend it in the
> name of an unforseen transrationale.
> 
> So, the questions in sum:
> 
> If rationality *is* proven to be natural in origin, why shouldn't
> ambitious people resist all forms of social rationality for the sake of
> proving free will over what is determined to be natural. And can a
> wholly 'secular' society justify itself in suppressing behavior
> resulting from this determination?
> 
> If rationality *is not* proven to be natural in origin, how can it's
> proponents continue to claim that their rational, social theories are
> secular, and not new forms of transcendental religion?
> 
> Does Habermas address these important questions that Nietzsche has hung
> over secular modernity?
> 
> Any feedback would be much appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tom
> 
> ====> Tom McDonald  CONTACT INFO:
> WEBSITE:  http://www.ThomasMcDonald.com
> EMAIL:  mcdonald928-AT-yahoo.com
> INSTANT MESSENGER:  "omhats" on AOL & MSN, "mcdonald928" on Yahoo
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
> 
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


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