Date: 	Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:54:22 -0500
Subject: Re: HAB: Understanding



On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 22:31:49 -0500  M.A. King wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:

> > Habermas's particular vision of a more utopian world is 
> > Kantian.  It is one in where contradictions do not exist (he 
> > really does rely upon 'generalized other' - something that I 
> > really don't want to become.

> I really don't know why you attribute this view to Habermas. 
 As far as I understand him, differences are not (necessarily) 
to be eliminated, but respected and understood.  Of course, in 
any society, there are some differences which must be 
overcome and will be overcome in any event--and the 
question is whether to overcome them strategically or 
communicatively.

You can think differently but you have to act according to 
reason.  Understanding means agreement about something.  
So moral actions must be of one accord.  And it is interesting 
that you mention that actions will be overcome strategically or 
communicatively...  are you saying that one has a choice of 
whether or not to act in either way.  If my critique of 
Habermas's performative contradiciton has any weight, I'll get 
to a response next week - then a discourse ethic is a 
decisionist ethic (Habermas charges Heller with a 
performative contradiction when she argues that acting 
according to consensus is a moral choice).

> >  Adorno envisioned a different kind of reconciliation - one 
where contradictions co-existed in  a non-antagonistic 
relationship.

> Not all contradictions can peacefully co-exist.  On the other 
hand, I think you're most likely to achieve peaceful 
co-existence, as far as possible, among people with 
contradictory outlooks if they take up communicative rather 
than strategic attitudes toward one another.

I would argue that it is impossible to take up a purely 
communicative outlook.  Stategy and communication are much 
more entwined than that.  Which is why I prefer to look at 
moral theory from a more Adornoesque perspective.

(snip)

> If you're going to advise people to forget trying to 
understand your contradictory views, then they might be 
inclined to exclude you from positions of social esteem or 
throw you in jail (if your views are not among the dominant 
ones) or to throw bombs at you (if your views are among
the dominant ones).  At any rate, people who do not 
understand you are going to be more inclined to try to 
eliminate the threat that your difference poses to them.

So differences are eliminated in a moral theory of discourse...

>  But ultimately, I should think that, in general,  the risk of 
open warfare of all against all outweighs any other risk.

You do realize that I am not arguing this....

ken, with only moments to spare today....




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