Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:42:59 -0800 (PST)
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 ---