File spoon-archives/habermas.archive/habermas_2003/habermas.0310, message 49


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005