Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary E Davis <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: [HAB:] Re: Fred, re: "Philosophy of Truth"


Fred, 

I like your comments. 

Don't you mean "practical" instead of "empirical"? I ask
this after the fact of my response below, which come to
this question.

--- FREDWELFARE-AT-aol.com wrote:

G>> The issue has remained: What's a good way to
appropriate Habermas' work (among others) in a more
comprehensive  approach to human life, progress,
flourishing, and evolution? It's not a matter of Habermas:
yes or no, rather a matter of how to appropriate his
deliberate boundaries into a more comprehensive view.

G: I might have added: The issue *for me* has remained....

F> The issue to decide upon, as both Habermas and critics
attest to, is to determine what the empirical effects of
the idealizations are.  

G: Where does JH attest to this? I agree that JH would
agree that idealizations have effects, but what causes you
to believe that "the issue" is a matter of empirical
effects?

F> Undoubtedly, the idealizations do have an empirical
effect by clarifying our ethical, legal, and  moral
assumptions as well as understanding how these
idealizations create parameters within which decisions
should remain.  

G: I believe that you mean *practical* effects, rather than
intending to mean empirical effects. I agree that,
undoubtedly, idealizations have practical effects. 

F> I find these idealizations a tremendous antidote to the
emotional and psychological defensiveness of everyday life.

G: I do, too.

F>  Also, if our perception clearly sees the lifeworld as
the center directing the systemsworld's priorities, instead
of vice versa, many of the bureaucratic obstacles can be
effectively critisized and our best ideas, like autonomy,
can prevail.

G: Yea!


Gary






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