Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:54:13 EST
Subject: Re: HAB: Review of Heath's Co. 



--part1_151.9e9707a.29b69885_boundary

In a message dated 3/5/2002 12:01:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
john.wright15-AT-att.net writes:


> What Heath questions is the degree to which normativity 
> is constituted through communicative action.  Rather, 
> he argues that language is a form of norm guided 
> activity.  So, the two fundamental social action types 
> for Heath are strategic and norm-guided, rather than 
> strategic and communicative.
> 
> But, if you are going to read that superficially

Your condescension and your misunderstanding of this issue are two sides of 
the same problem.  I obviously read your review otherwise I would not have 
been able to penetrate and distill the problem.  Heath contradicts Habermas 
and I find it untenable.  the communicative action stance demands the norms 
be justified, so how can language or communication be norm-guided when the 
point is to criticize norms themselves through communicative action.  The 
historical situation is that culture posits norms as the beliefs, values, and 
rules from the previous generations as tradition; through communicative 
action, we are evaluating norms as valid or invalid.  So, to continue this 
guidance from norms within communicative action, would obviously undermine 
it.

Fwelfare




--part1_151.9e9707a.29b69885_boundary

HTML VERSION: