Re[2]: >Habermas is Habermas, 'nough said.

Erik Linberg wrote something to the effect that Hegel
"believed one form of rationality would win out," but that
he also (supposedly in the "Prefaces," he looks at various
"competing" rationalities.

---Competing for what?
Doesn't the statement that oen form of rationality would win
out (and what would this be, if the rationalioty of hte
modern Prussian state?) suggest that only one form of
rationality is valid, is the subkect of history, is REAL?
(My original statement?)

Mr. Lindberg, after intervenign through parts of my
commentary (not hte "substantive" part, for i was raising an
issue that concerns Foucault), directs me to Hegel's
Prefaces. Since I don't have that lovely, though
incomprehensible "archetectonic" masterpiece of sophistry,
The Phenomenology, handy, (and spare the "logic"), I looked
up some of those "competing rationalities" Hegel so
congenially considers:
"Another characteristic fact in reference to the Negroes is
Slavery. Negroes are enslaved by Europeans and sold in
America. Bad as this may be, thei lot in their own land is
even worse, since there a slavery quite as absolute
exists."(Dover, 1956, 96)
"From these various traits it is manifest that want of
self-control distinguishes the Negroes."(980
Concerning Asia: "it presents the origination of all
religious and political principles, but Europe has been the
scene of their development."(101)
We could go on, but why bother? The genrla point is that
these "competing rationalities" aren't RATIONAL (i.e.
Shall we look at what Kant says about the "progress" of
"I therefore cannot and will not see it as so deeply
immersed in evil that practical moral reason will not
triumph in the end, after many unsuccessful attempts,
thereby showing that it is worthy of admiration after all.
On the cosmopolitan level too, it htus remains true to say
that whatever reason shows valid in theory, is also valid in
pratice."(Political writings, 92)
The gist? reason will win out at teh end of history, because
all of those other suitors to the throne will prove
themselves invalid. The winner in history? Reason! The
rational man? the modern Prussian!
I'm sorry, but the triple Kant, Hegel, Hitler doesn't strike
me as odd at all. i'm just not sure how many other german
philosophers would fitin between kant and Hitler.
The question about Habermas has to do with whether he would
fit at the end of the list. After all, what is
commmunicative reason, "maturity," etc. all about, if not
the dismissal of these "irrational" (unArian) suitors to the

J. Cronin


Partial thread listing: