Subject: Re: HAB: Review of Heath's Co.
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 05:07:08
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P><BR>Hi Jhon</P>
<P><BR>Thanks for very helpful review. Heath's book seems to me very interesting and I look forward to<BR>read it.</P>
<P>I found especially helpful and interesting the clear differentiation between meaning of <BR>speech act and its justification. I was trying to articulate the difference for quite some<BR>time and it helped me to be more clear about that.</P>
<P>There is a question to you and list, which was in my mind but recurred while reading your<BR>review. On the one hand Habermas defines strategic action as the one which involves <BR>persual of "one's own interests", while on the other hand, as you put it, he tries to argue<BR>that "norms are grounded in interest". Does not this involve Habermas in a contradiction?<BR>Obvious way out would be to differentiate between particaular and gernal interests, but<BR>can not there be some 'particular' interests that are also generalisable? and if it is<BR>so then does not it make moral argumentation strategic too, according to Habermas' <BR>definition? </P>
<P>best regards<BR>ali<BR></P></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <a href='http://g.msn.com/1HM105301/13'>Click Here</a><br></html>
--- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005