From: "matthew piscioneri" <mpiscioneri-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HAB:] JH and understanding
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:03:01 +0000


Peter,

apologies if this reply is outdated by now, but Maeve Cooke in her *Language 
and Reason* (MIT, 1997) gives a good concise discussion on what Habermas 
(circa TCA) understands (excuse the pun) by "processes of seeking to reach 
an understanding" (See especially p9).

IMO, JH's primordial use of "understanding" concerns the transacting of the 
meanings inherent in symbolic expressions. Thus, when in the TCA Habermas 
writes that the telos of (communicative) speech is to reach an understanding 
he is uncontroversially saying that when we exchange speech acts the purpose 
of this behaviour *in the first place* is to try and get across meaning. It 
is NOT (again in the first place) to instrumentalize another person or to 
develop strategic plans. Habermas, as Cooke agrees, on this conceptual, a 
priori level gets this much right.

However, Habermas's argument here rests on a semantic theory which MUST hold 
onto the decidedly non-naturalistic position of there being these 
things/qualities whatever called *meanings* that somehow inhere to the 
noises and scratchings and pixels us human animals make and have made. I am 
a fairly strict Quinean on this, and it is telling that throughout this 
period JH is committed to disparaging behaviorist models of linguistic 
communication. Instead he opts for Buhler's model - strongly supported by 
Peirce - that allows for the transcendentalizing of linguistic meanings.


This semantic transcendentalism is one place where I think JH's project 
breaks down. The barely submerged neo-Platonism of his semantic theory 
obviously troubles JH. He responds to Henrich's sharp criticism of this in 
*PMT* if I remember correctly and then in the first pages of *BFN* he again 
tries to deflect criticism of his project on this account.

I addressed this issues in detail in my thesis and I am happy to post the 
section dealing with what I termed "Problems of Ontology" is your are 
interested. My conclusion was that the persistent transcendentalism of JH's 
semantic theory conflicted with his very strong claims for a 
post-metaphysical philosophy. Too much reliance on the liberating power of 
symbols methinks :-).

Regards,

MattP.

_________________________________________________________________
ninemsn Extra Storage is now available. 30MB of storage on ninemsn Groups - 
great for sharing photos and documents. Click here  http://join.msn.com/



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