In a message dated 1/22/99 4:20:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, making@xxxxxxxx
writes:
> the
> problem has more to do with getting people to submit to Habermas's
> idealized conditions of discourse rather than with what happens once those
> conditions are accepted.
>
I think you are misapplying what Habermas means by ideal, however, he does not
any longer defend the ISS, or ideal speech situation, argument, since the
underlying issue, the validity claims and the warrant to redeem them that any
speaker takes up when he/she speaks, is considered a universal. What you are
probably referring to is: what happens when the doctor and the whore converse
given the probability of incommensurate dispositions ( I am obviously avoiding
the discussion of stereotypingand predjudice). Habermas does not pretend that
most interactions
and conversations do not contain plenty of perlocutions and strategic
manuevering.
They mostly do, just check your own experience. But, what he is claiming and
holding Mead up so we can understand it ourselves without being "persuaded,"
is that when we fail to try to reach agreement, that is, when we interact
strategically,
we could be held accountable for the invalidity of our speech acts. There are
of course two kinds of consequences: natural and positive law. Then, the
discourse goes into ethics, democratic norms, their origin and justification.
I'm sure glad you have brought this topic up again as I can finish off that
"Between Norms and Facts," and get into his two newest texts :-))
writes:
> the
> problem has more to do with getting people to submit to Habermas's
> idealized conditions of discourse rather than with what happens once those
> conditions are accepted.
>
I think you are misapplying what Habermas means by ideal, however, he does not
any longer defend the ISS, or ideal speech situation, argument, since the
underlying issue, the validity claims and the warrant to redeem them that any
speaker takes up when he/she speaks, is considered a universal. What you are
probably referring to is: what happens when the doctor and the whore converse
given the probability of incommensurate dispositions ( I am obviously avoiding
the discussion of stereotypingand predjudice). Habermas does not pretend that
most interactions
and conversations do not contain plenty of perlocutions and strategic
manuevering.
They mostly do, just check your own experience. But, what he is claiming and
holding Mead up so we can understand it ourselves without being "persuaded,"
is that when we fail to try to reach agreement, that is, when we interact
strategically,
we could be held accountable for the invalidity of our speech acts. There are
of course two kinds of consequences: natural and positive law. Then, the
discourse goes into ethics, democratic norms, their origin and justification.
I'm sure glad you have brought this topic up again as I can finish off that
"Between Norms and Facts," and get into his two newest texts :-))