From: "matthew piscioneri" <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: HAB: GWB & Understanding
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 00:26:02 +0000
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P><FONT size=1>Dear Bill, Bob:</FONT></P></DIV>
<P><FONT size=1>>problem remains: what can we do about GWB (and his ilk) then? How can we salvage (redeem) the possibility of reaching understanding from armed violence? </FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Here's a few ideas:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>1. By killing everyone except yourself ;-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>2. Genetically engineered enlightenment.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>3. The anti-war movement is actually working in Australia I believe. People don't appear to be as stupid as they used to be. Old Europe's stance has also made a palpable difference. Local resistances build into global resistances.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>I'm not saying that GWB won't go to war because the happy slaves are disapproving, but there has been something of a global consciousness shift. It is a good sign for the future. Powell will have to take something fairly persuasive to the S.C next week, and even then there are plenty of people saying why should the Gang of Eight only possess WOMD?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>George "The Butcher" Bush showed as Governor of Texas that he is a little short in the empathy stakes, so a lot depends on Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice and Blair.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Personally, I'd like to see the debate returned to "regime-change", and the moral highground built up around the holy chalice of democracy. Can you see this one getting past China in the Security Council? Can you hear the Saudis and Kuwaiti royal families quaking with the mere mention of Islamic republicanism? Who doesn't want to see Saddam Hussein flushed down the lavatory of history?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>To return to Bill's question, there are just some people you can't "reason" with. This is why IMO Habermas's theory flonders on the issue of intentionality/motivation. Unless participants are "open" to the unforced force of the better argument any process of trying to reach an understanding is flawed from the start.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Look at Sharon v. Arafat/Hamas. Which one of these parties is sincerely open to reaching an understanding? Reaching an understanding requires empathy in the sense of being "understanding" of the other's case, a willingness and in fact a desire to compromise. There is a clear distinction between "bargaining" and reaching an understanding. This is perhaps why Gadamer said somewhere of Habermas's theory of communicative action that it was for the angels.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>MattP</FONT></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN 8 with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMZENAU/2740">e-mail virus protection service: </a> 2 months FREE* </html>
--- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005