Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 08:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject:  [HAB:]  Naturalism


The more I recall the issue emphasized by Daniel
earlier this week, the more I want to focus on it in a
big way. 

But what's wrong with naturalism in the first place?
IS this just the same as quite properly objecting to
biologism in, say, understanding Habermas's assertion
of "anthropologically deep-seated" aspects of the
lifeworld? Is interpretive suspicion about
anthropological deep-seatedness basically to wonder 
*how are we* to understand anthropological
deep-seatedness, if NOT biologistically? Is the
objection basically a call for a discursive How To?

What, then, is biologism that makes it problematic to
say that human nature is biological?

John Searle and others argue quite well that the mind
is what the brain does. On that basis (given proper
explication), a naturalization of phenomenology may
gain tenability. Habermas's sense of "weak naturalism"
accords with that, I would argue.

Just to get clear on what the presumed (but
undiscussed) problem of naturalism is, what's wrong
with saying that human nature is "real", in some sense
of epistemological realism?

Given the tenability of evolutionary
psychology---which quite a few investigators take
seriously---why *can't* such a discursive formation
validly understand the "and" of a weak naturalism and
epistemological realism? Is Habermas's work in
principle averse to some kind of evolutionary
psychology? 

What's wrong with claiming that our ontological
condition is biological?

Gary


-----------------------------------------------
Re: [HAB:]  Is "weak naturalism" "metaphysical" for
Habermas?
--- "Daniel C. Henrich" <daniel.henrich-AT-web.de> wrote:

> Hi Gary,
> 
> I hope, I'll find the time to answer you with more
> details tomorrow.
> 
> Daniel
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Gary E. Davis" <coherings-AT-yahoo.com>
> To: <habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [HAB:] Is "weak naturalism"
> "metaphysical" for Habermas?
> 
> 
> > Daniel, I want to pursue this. How can this be
> > manageably done? 
> > 
> > -- What do *you* mean by naturalism? 
> > 
> > -- What do you claim *Habermas* means by
> naturalism in
> > _Postmetaphysical Thinking_? (I'll look to see if
> > there are references to 'naturalism' in the index
> of
> > _PT_, when I'm near the book later today.)
> > 
> > -- What's wrong with naturalism, anyway? Not to
> say
> > that I endorse a simple naturalism of some sort,
> but
> > supposing that one IS a "naturalist," what's the
> > problem with that? It depends on what one means by
> > naturalism, of course. 
> > 
> > It's not that I can't answer my own question. But
> I
> > want to get into it further. One problem with
> Matt's
> > discussion was that he wasn't even addressing
> > Habermas's quasi-naturalistic comments
> substantively. 
> > 
> > D> In my opinion this proceeding [to support a
> weak
> > naturalism] has consequences that contradict some
> of
> > his arguments in discourse ethics and he might
> even
> > get problems with his concept of communicative
> reason.
> > 
> > G: Say more about this. What arguments in
> discourse
> > ethics? What aspect of his concept of
> communicative
> > reason gets problems? It could be very worthwhile
> for
> > myself and others to pursue this is some detail.
> > 
> > D: At the moment I try to figure out if there are
> > possibilities to solve or avoid these problems
> without
> > being either metaphysical or naturalistic.
> > 
> > G: I bet that there are possibilities to solve or
> > avoid the problems you identify. First, though,
> there
> > has to be some specification of the problems. 
> > 
> > I look forward to continuing this issue.
> > 
> > Gary
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >     --- from list
> habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 
>      --- from list
> habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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