Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:08:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Gary E Davis <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com> Subject: [HAB:] RE: Mark, re: Lifeworld *telos* Mark, I enjoyed your posting (surreal that it is). Please don't be daunted by the rudeness of the "autodidact" (Dumain). I hope you'll apply your fascinating sensibility more to the specifics of postings (Matt's, in this case; or the specifics from Matt's posting quoted by Dumain). I'm betting that you have some very engaging views of Habermas. Supposing that you're a reader of Derrida, I'd like to see you work with Habermas' critique of Derrida in "On the Distinction between Poetic and Communicative Uses of Language," which is ch9 of _On the Pragmatics of Communication_ (which reproduces pp. 194-210 of _Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_). Gary --- Mark Tippett <mwtippett-AT-sympatico.ca> wrote: > "If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible > to answer it." > (Wittgenstein Tractatus) > > "Language speaks" (Heidegger) > > "How to avoid speaking, Denials" (Derrida) > > As I see, Habermas's "recent turn"--inspired by Derrida's > recent "new" > questionings--directs listeners and speakers towards the > functioning of > communicative "reason" as an event which aims at locating > the "who" of "the > voice". Yet, this "who" in its "appearance", is not > equal to nor a totality > of all "communicators". The "who", and here we locate > once again Habermas's > underlying "economic", is a voice in proxy. Or, if you > like, the life-world > worlds via a "who" without a "who" (essence). Expressed > otherwise, > listeners listen to speakers speaking without > "personhood" since it is they > and not the speaker, speaking. > > Yes, odd "logic" here. Perhaps in this "logic" we > (re)discover the joke or > the tragic. However, decisionism it is not--here I > locate one of Habermas's > un-thoughts--since a purpose for why people gather must > exist, prior to > gathering? (Why else would they gather?) > > Habermas's neither/nor "logic" rescues worlding from a > narrow understanding > of Nietzsche, Weber, and a certain Sartre but at what > costs? As I see it, he > draws us too close to Hegel. But, ought this to surprise > any of us? > > ? What of a "collective" who in "silent"? > ? When I look at a blue sky does the word "blue" mean > the same for you as > I? And, by > extension, what of that particular "collective", over > there? > ? What of proper names here? "Jim said that it is over > there." If above is > the case, the speaker of this utterance would in fact be > deceiving--not > telling the truth--since Jim was a proxy for a > "collective" that perhaps > existed a moment ago, but does not now. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU > [mailto:owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On > Behalf Of Ralph Dumain > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 11:55 AM > To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > Subject: Re: [HAB:] Lifeworld *telos* > > Most of your argument seems sound. I do not understand > this rebuttal on > the part of Habermas: > > At 03:42 AM 10/12/2003 +0000, matthew piscioneri wrote: > >"Against this formalism she advances elements of an > almost Weberian > >world-view: the (in the final analysis) decisionistic > basis of value > >orientations; the fact that socio-cultural forms of life > appear in the > >plural; and, finally, the indissolubly tragic substance > of history. In my > >view neither the polytheism of beliefs nor the dialectic > of progress - > >elements which I am not at all tempted to deny - can be > correctly > >interpreted unless one resists the decisionism suggested > by Nietzsche and > >played out by Weber in neo-Kantian terms, and by Sartre > in existentialist > >terms." (1983: 226) > > Translate into English, please? > > >In other words, Habermas is committed to the awkward > position that > >participants in discourse always/already make a > normative commitment to > >communicative reason, quite literally, each time they > speak. > > And who could believe such a thing? > > >On this issue, Habermas appears to be committed to an > immanent lifeworld > >*telos* or *redemptive bearing* that seeks the > restoration of its > >communicatively rational "inner nature." > > English translation, please? > > > > --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > --- > > > > --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005