Subject: HAB: Re: Dear colleagues
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:23:42 -0800


I'd also like to express my concern about some of the questions on the list.
Over the past six months there seems to be an increase in the 'does Habermas
have anything to say about this' kind of questions, which at times seems to
be half-mockingly (perhaps these might more appropriately be phrase: Has
Habermas written on X Y or Z?). Habermas's approach is largely
*theoretical* - if we want to discuss issues of theory and practice, then
fine - but insofar as Habermas's works are oriented by theoretical concerns
there can be no directed or unmediated application (if the concept of
application even makes sense here). The kinds of questions being raised of
late are *practical* questions - and must be debated by political citizens,
who might also happen to be professional theorists, if we accept the
Habermasian distinction. Insofar as Habermas's work is theoretical, then it
is oriented by claims regarding truth and rightness (but not in the ordinary
sense of 'that is right, that is wrong.' Habermas has made explicit that, as
far as theory goes, all philosophy can do is provide a rational
justification for a normative viewpoint. In other words, 'political facts'
cannot illuminate Habermas's theory in any way, nor can Habermas's political
theory illuminate 'political facts' in any particular way without mediated
thinking. What is being demanded / requested goes beyond the scope of what
theory can do. Armed conflict is about as far away from the minimal
conditions required for argumentation as is possible. Does that mean we
discard the idea of argumentation simply because people have guns? No. Does
it mean that a theory of argumentation has nothing to offer with regards to
political analysis? That's a category mistake. A theory of argumentation
provides a justification for a normative viewpoint, in itself it does not
'explain' anything other than the inherent normative viewpoint entailed by
pragmatic assumptions built into the linguistic capacity of speakers
(however debatable that is). As such, it doesn't solve conflicts, that's up
to 'us.' Even if the entire world is blow up tomorrow, it doesn't mean
Habemas's work is irrelevant, false, or inappropriate, it just means that
the entire world would be blown up. All of this reminds me of the theism /
atheism debates: whenver something bad happens the atheist can say to the
theist 'where is your god now?'

ken



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