Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 19:39:50 -0800
Subject: Re: HAB: Review of Heath's Co. 



If I understand what Fwelfare is saying, norms, like everything else, must 
be open to justification because otherwise,  in reifying some norms, we 
would cease to have the legitimacy Habermas seeks in hearing all validity 
claims in good faith.  That's because the validity claims are in fact 
embodied and embedded, yes?

Now, is Joseph Heath agreeing or disagreeing with that? (I'm waiting for 
the book to come out in paperback, too. But for this debate though, I 
wouldn't have known about the book. Never enough time.)

And could someone tell me if that wouldn't also fit in with what Seyla 
Benhabib is saying in Situating the Self: "What I propose is a procedural 
reformulation of the universalizability principle along the model of a 
moral conversation in which the capacity to reverse perspectives, that is, 
the willingness to reason from the others' point of view, and the 
sensitivity to hear their voice is paramount." (At. p.4 of the introduction.)

jeanne

At 10:04 PM 3/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>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

HTML VERSION: