Subject: RE: [HAB:] What makes a human right universal?
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:32:30 -0500


Ralph and Others: 

Ok. 

You be the expert!   

Kant argues for the importance of Nature.  His argument is diametrically
apposed to either Hegel or Marx.  As you suggest, Kant argues that only in
nature can we find change without "external" purpose.  Yet, this change is
not lawlessness, i.e. it is self-regulating and self-organizing.   It,
nature, is Kant's infinity. If nature, either philosophically and literally,
is destroyed or unobserved we could not become moral agents since we would
not learn the idea of disinterested-interest.  

I appeal to Kant only because most agree that he is the leading thinker
whose concepts of Nature are unique and outside the Hegel/Marx notions of
materialism and its use-and-abuses.  I do this, though, only in order to try
to reach an agreement in our "frame" and all terms used.  Forgive me,
though, if I tend to think that modern and post-modern philosophy begins,
seldom departing, with Kant.  (As with Habermas, I too have trouble
conceiving of morality as if it is Ethics - transcendental idealism - since
what is necessary to "judge" an event would a priori be absent, i.e. access
to its "happening".)  

But you are correct. This is about Habermas not other authorities or
experts.  But I remain unconvinced that, structurally and externally, the
"inner" dynamic which I have named Nature, is as easy to locate as suggested
by some.  Yet, if our theory cannot locate it, our Habermas becomes nothing
but yet another lifeless description.  

For you!  Where or what is the changeable for Habermas and how is this
accessed such that the likelihood of an improved tomorrow is increased?
And, as with my Kant description above, would this "access" place me
"external" to the changeable and how can I know that it is self-regulating
and "intending"?  

Perhaps these questions are too obvious and without merit.  Here, I must
appeal to your expertise and authority. 

Enjoyed, though, your emotive response.  It, for me, was as colorful as it
is sound. 

Regards,
Mark 






-----Original Message-----
From: owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 6:50 AM
To: habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: RE: [HAB:] What makes a human right universal?

Aside from the fact that all this is incoherent drivel, nobody has yet 
claimed that any "natural" tendencies are inevitably manifested or 
developed.  If anyone has anything interesting to say about the 
relationship between biological species characteristics and intentionality, 
that would be an interesting side exercise.  Hegel, of course, does have an 
explicit teleology, whereas Marx abjures same, but either is infinitely 
more valuable than the horseshit you adduce as an argument.  The key here 
is a dynamic rather than static approach.  I'm glad Gary found merit in my 
response.  You will notice, I hope, that I simply thought the matter 
through without any reliance on name-dropping or citation of alleged 
authorities.  If more people followed this practice, they might learn how 
to think instead of just following whoever they think is the leader.  As 
this is a Habermas list, of course it will be interesting to learn how 
Habermas handles the issue.

At 10:03 PM 11/2/2003 -0500, Mark Tippett wrote:
>Gary, Ralph, Mattp, and Others:
>
>What is an event?  Prior to an event are systems of intentionality.  After
>an event are systems of judgment.  During an event is a doer; afterward a
>deed.  If by natural is meant inevitable, I cannot agree with this thread.
>
>To understand morality we must first possess a rudimentary understanding of
>causality (Kant).  To introduce the idea of unintended consequences and
>notions of fairness our prior mechanistic notions of causality must have
>been overcome and greatly expanded (Wittgenstein).  To hold ourselves both
>within and without the life-world (set theory anyone?) such that an other's
>actions might be judged requires advanced thinking akin to physics.
>
>To believe her when she claims the our unintended consequences are not the
>same as hers requires a prior understanding of Ethics as it touches the
>tools within a world -after not before the "linguistic turn"- and the
>capacity to know that as a particular act "in the world" nothing whatsoever
>guarantees an act's outcome.
>
>For me, none of the above thinking is "natural" or inevitable.  I'm not
>being vain or self-righteous.  Hegel or Marx, in terms of this issue, are
>dangerously wrong.
>
>I too enjoyed all prior threads.
>
>Cheers,
>Mark



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



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