Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HAB:] re: Dallmayr and Habermas


Fred,

I don't know that "Dallmayr has misread Habermas." I
do know that Dallmayr hasn't misread Heidegger, but
Habermas has misread Heidegger. 

Also, Derrida hasn't misread Heidegger, while Habermas
has misread Derrida. Dallmayr tacitly continues his
differences with Habermas in terms of McCarthy's
disagreement with Derrida (Dallmayr, _Achieving Our
World_, 155-159), while McCarthy (as I noted
yesterday) leans toward Dallmayr vis-a-vis Habermas on
cosmopolitanism. So, as we say, go figure. 

An appropriate critical concept here is *logocentrism*
and whether the Heideggerian-Derridean critique of
logocentrism pertains to Habermas's emphasis on "the
Logos of language" (_R&R, 91) against
Dallmayr-Heidegger. 

I would approach this issue in terms of Habermas's
readings of Heidegger, which would reveal a
phenomenology of subject-centered reason "in"
"Heidegger" by Habermas which does not originate from
what Heidegger says. Thus, there is a plausible
hermeneutical hypothesis that the subject-centered
reasoning that Habermas finds in "Heidegger" is coming
projectively from Habermas (the psychoanalytic model
of critique is useful here), critically explicable in
terms of a comparison of what Habermas says about
Heidegger's specific views and what Heidegger
says---i.e., critically explicable in terms of a close
reading of Habermas's specific critical views of
Heidegger, in _Philosophical Discourse of Modernity_
and _Postmetaphysical Thinking_. Thus, Dallmay's
hypothesis that communicative reason has not escaped
the Subjective Mind is credible---or, rather, can be
shown to be credible. 

In any case, my interest is to preserve, appreciate,
and employ the profound insightfulness of Habermas's
theory of communicative action (and other constructive
contributions---the specifically *Habermasian*
contribution to philosophical social theory,
etc.)---to do so on its own terms, in his own terms
(albeit in English)---without occluding the
insightfulness of the Heideggerian-Derridean tradition
and while appreciating (as best I can) developments in
interdisciplinary discursive work (in a truly
Habermasian spirit) that Habermas has not worked
with---to be the good son, if I may say so. 

Indeed, an authentic Habermasian isn't just Habermas
reincarnated. What Habermas sets out to do---and does
*so* exemplarily, so greatly---may lead to discursive
results that Habermas does not find acceptable. After
all, Habermas would be the first to proclaim the
virtue of learning through doing critique.

Gary 





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

>  
> In a message dated 8/13/2004 6:04:16 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,  
> coherings-AT-yahoo.com writes:
> 
> Dallmayr  has been a sympathetic reader of Habermas
> for
> a long  time
> 
> 
> In Chapter 3 of Religion and Rationality,
> Transcendence from Within,  
> Transcendence in the World, Habermas restates the
> dispute Dallmayr has  raised.  
> Dallmayr claims that Habermas' linguistic turn is a
> humanism in  which the old 
> metaphysical dualisms, e.g. subject-object, are
> aligned with  Habermas' 
> lifeworld-system, empiricism-hermeneutics, and
> propositonal-reflective  speech 
> distinctions.  In other words, Habermas' view is
> really  subject-centered and not 
> intersubjective. Habermas explains why Dallmayr is 
> mistaken.  But, for some 
> reason Dallmayr has misread Habermas. 
>  
> Fred Welfare
> 



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