Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:04:44 EST
Subject: Re: HAB: Review of Heath's Co. 



--part1_115.d8a89ba.29b58fcc_boundary

In a message dated 3/4/2002 7:56:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
tintamar-AT-club-internet.fr writes:


> Joseph Heath's book is enlightening on many aspects. It is one of the
> clearest and most profound reconstruction of Habermas's pragmatics of
> language. It contains many serious questions that Habermas leaves
> unanswered, contrary to Fwelfare's dogmatic and uninspired reappropriations
> of Habermas. It builds several bridges between Habermas and Brandom. And
> last but not least, it assumes from the start its departure from some of
> Habermas's thesis.
> 
> 

Martin, You are the flamer. I did not flame anyone. I stated my opinion and 
you can't take it. Habermas spent no less than three books on this matter of 
the justification of norms and the problems of invalid norms, not to mention 
the source of distortion and
deception.  Try to discuss the matter without calling anyone names; 
namecalling is inflamatory, so take the hint.  But, otoh, I also appreciate 
your passion and so if you really feel strongly that this is worth it, then I 
will look at it again.

<The rejection of norm-jutifiying action is taken here out of context. Heath
<wants to make the case that an account of norm justification cannot take its
<departure from a pragmatics of speech acts. It must start, Heath argues, at
<the level of  institutional structures and extract its criteria from the
<implicit normative commitments found in social action.

This comment I take to be very conservative and in complete contradiction to 
Habermas's criticism of Parsons as found in TCA2.  It seems to me as if you 
are defending a taken for granted normativity that is anchored by 
institutional structures which then "reach straight thru" to the foundations 
of individual social action.  Well, this is absolutely outrageous and demands 
confrontation.  I have agreed to no such institutional structures or implicit 
normative commitments.  The structures and commitments MUST be instituted 
anew through open discussion in valid speech acts.  Otherwise, you are over 
our heads and behind our backs with transcendental
metaphysical manipulation (others might call it gov't/corporate policy).  I 
simply won't stand for it.  Come clean in argument/debate/diatribe or what 
have you, but stop this lame defense of failing to justify norms.  You can go 
along with your cronies and make believe that some norms are insulated from 
criticism, but in your heart you know that you must give reasons, sooner or 
later.  

Fwelfare


--part1_115.d8a89ba.29b58fcc_boundary

HTML VERSION: