Date: 	Thu, 5 Mar 1998 23:46:43 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: The ethic of discussion and the problem of time


On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 20:26:44 -0500  Erik Davis wrote:

> It seems evasive to move from the content of speech to the 
performative  contradiction, because the latter does not take 
into account the problem  at hand--namely, the question of 
what EMPIRICAL "purpose" or MOTIVATION  does any 
instance of communication serve?  If we say that it merely 
serves the "need" for communication, that avoids the question 
while suggesting that we really don't ever need 
strategic-instrumental action  (or anything other than 
communication itself) after all--which is not  very easy to 
"stomach"--or to take to bed, for that matter. . . .

I agree - but I wanted to clear up my critique of perform con 
and (U) before moving onto CWright's ?'s about Habermasian 
'man' and his (intentional sic) relationship to morality as a 
safety net.  I think all three problems are related - motivation 
relates to (U) - in the sense that if (U) is only legislative then 
there is no real MORAL impulse to participate and if the 
performative contradiction argument is problematic then this 
too addresses how people engage in moral struggle (pointing, 
I think, toward a more dynamic relationship between ethics 
and morality and a more inclusive understanding of moral 
phenomenon OUTSIDE of sheer communicative discourse).  
Going after Habermas's idea of the performative contradiction 
is important here because by demonstrating its incoherence 
one can then move on to discuss the moral sphere without 
being deemed irrational or radically skeptical.

ken




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