Sam,
I don't think there is a question about whether people should read
Habermas. I think they should. He has some very interesting and
insightful ideas. For example, I find his explanation of the colonization
of the lifeworld very powerful in explaining just what is goin on. The
lifeworld, our world of menaning, is being debunked of its
"meaning-giving" power b the forces of (bad) rationalization. Meaning is
taken away by the use of money and bureacracy which is not concerned with
meaning but only with action. This harkens back to my comments about the
early Frankfurt School in that they hold that architectonic structures like
Kant's system are devoid of any substantial goals- that is goals of meaning
and freedom.
> I think JLN's comment about aesthetic reasoning just doesn't apply to
>habermas. Habermas chastises earlier appeals on behalf of Critical Theory
>to "irrationalist" or "aesthic" properties of commicative interaction as
>ultimately romantic.
Okay, but how does he back this up. And for my original question, why does
he constantly refer to aesthetic reasoning in his major two volume work,
Theory of Communicative Rationality, and yet not spell out what he means by
it. Whether it is romantic or not, is a different question.
Futher, isn't the real point about Habermas is that he has simply created
another architectonic theory like Kant did, and that it borders on losing
freedom in the ideal realm (what is the ideal speech situation anyway?)?
In any case, Foucault wants to or at least does return the notions of
meaning and freedom. He articulates a mutliple series of rationalities and
subject positions which individuals like you and me can occupy. But in so
doing, he has debunked philosophy of any meaning or value, it seems. Has
he done the same thing as a Kantian architectonic system but at the
opposite extreme?
P.S. to everyone and no one in particular. When replying to messages,
please do not copy the whole message that was sent before, only the
relevant parts. Some people have sent the french version and the english
version of the text about Foucault on Lacan simply to say that they don't
know french, or something like this. This is a waste of band space (that
is, it takes longer to dwonload and therefore costs more money).
JLN
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
University of Kentucky
------------------
I don't think there is a question about whether people should read
Habermas. I think they should. He has some very interesting and
insightful ideas. For example, I find his explanation of the colonization
of the lifeworld very powerful in explaining just what is goin on. The
lifeworld, our world of menaning, is being debunked of its
"meaning-giving" power b the forces of (bad) rationalization. Meaning is
taken away by the use of money and bureacracy which is not concerned with
meaning but only with action. This harkens back to my comments about the
early Frankfurt School in that they hold that architectonic structures like
Kant's system are devoid of any substantial goals- that is goals of meaning
and freedom.
> I think JLN's comment about aesthetic reasoning just doesn't apply to
>habermas. Habermas chastises earlier appeals on behalf of Critical Theory
>to "irrationalist" or "aesthic" properties of commicative interaction as
>ultimately romantic.
Okay, but how does he back this up. And for my original question, why does
he constantly refer to aesthetic reasoning in his major two volume work,
Theory of Communicative Rationality, and yet not spell out what he means by
it. Whether it is romantic or not, is a different question.
Futher, isn't the real point about Habermas is that he has simply created
another architectonic theory like Kant did, and that it borders on losing
freedom in the ideal realm (what is the ideal speech situation anyway?)?
In any case, Foucault wants to or at least does return the notions of
meaning and freedom. He articulates a mutliple series of rationalities and
subject positions which individuals like you and me can occupy. But in so
doing, he has debunked philosophy of any meaning or value, it seems. Has
he done the same thing as a Kantian architectonic system but at the
opposite extreme?
P.S. to everyone and no one in particular. When replying to messages,
please do not copy the whole message that was sent before, only the
relevant parts. Some people have sent the french version and the english
version of the text about Foucault on Lacan simply to say that they don't
know french, or something like this. This is a waste of band space (that
is, it takes longer to dwonload and therefore costs more money).
JLN
jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
University of Kentucky
------------------