In a message dated 03/02/2000 10:46:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
suannschafer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> I'm cornfused as to how it is possible "to think outside discourse."
> I think I can understand the desire to imagine/think outside
> discursive structures, but isn't even this imbedded in some notion of
> "discourse"?
Philosophy before the late 20th century never enunciated an dialogical
approach, that is, determined principles or categories on the basis that
agreement determined validity. We have lived in an extremely stratified
socio-historical context for all of history wherein powerful interests
determined norms. To open up questionable norms to dicursive processes of
will formation is a relatively new form of democracy.
Tho brought up by Hegel and implied in Kant, legitimation by discourse is
relatively new. Philosophers typically determine the coherence and validity
of their theories through a finely articulated but subjective logic wherein
the rationality of the position is explained and only a few other well-versed
colleagues could adequately critique.
>
> >It was the
> >traditionalists who
> >attempted a metaphysics of subjectivity that analytically related
concepts
> to
> >each other such that values appeared to be connected to generalizable
norms
> >and maxims, without undergoing any tests by discourse.
>
>
> I'm afraid I've lost you above. Isn't there always a test by
> discourse, even if the test isn't immanent? Are the exceptions to
> which you point below a form of test by discourse? Is "dialogue"
> below the same as "discourse"? And aren't "dialogical methods" (a
> form of ) "discourse", indeed a discursive strategy/structure?
Of course discourse is dialogue, but when was the last time you discussed
norms with anyone??
>
> >Exceptions began to
> >multiply to the principles thus arrived at which were quite logical but
> which
> >had not undergone any test of dialogue. When dialogical methods were
> >employed to check the validity
> >of the principles, maxims, and general norms, many were found wanting,
> often
> >for lack of simple sensibility or reasonability, not to mention
> practicality.
> >If there are tqwo sides to this problem, the sides are those of identity
> >analysts and nonidentity
> >holists who attempts to relate all perspectives of living individuals
> >together, not merely subjectivistic hiercharies of metaphysical concepts,
> as
> does the former.
suannschafer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> I'm cornfused as to how it is possible "to think outside discourse."
> I think I can understand the desire to imagine/think outside
> discursive structures, but isn't even this imbedded in some notion of
> "discourse"?
Philosophy before the late 20th century never enunciated an dialogical
approach, that is, determined principles or categories on the basis that
agreement determined validity. We have lived in an extremely stratified
socio-historical context for all of history wherein powerful interests
determined norms. To open up questionable norms to dicursive processes of
will formation is a relatively new form of democracy.
Tho brought up by Hegel and implied in Kant, legitimation by discourse is
relatively new. Philosophers typically determine the coherence and validity
of their theories through a finely articulated but subjective logic wherein
the rationality of the position is explained and only a few other well-versed
colleagues could adequately critique.
>
> >It was the
> >traditionalists who
> >attempted a metaphysics of subjectivity that analytically related
concepts
> to
> >each other such that values appeared to be connected to generalizable
norms
> >and maxims, without undergoing any tests by discourse.
>
>
> I'm afraid I've lost you above. Isn't there always a test by
> discourse, even if the test isn't immanent? Are the exceptions to
> which you point below a form of test by discourse? Is "dialogue"
> below the same as "discourse"? And aren't "dialogical methods" (a
> form of ) "discourse", indeed a discursive strategy/structure?
Of course discourse is dialogue, but when was the last time you discussed
norms with anyone??
>
> >Exceptions began to
> >multiply to the principles thus arrived at which were quite logical but
> which
> >had not undergone any test of dialogue. When dialogical methods were
> >employed to check the validity
> >of the principles, maxims, and general norms, many were found wanting,
> often
> >for lack of simple sensibility or reasonability, not to mention
> practicality.
> >If there are tqwo sides to this problem, the sides are those of identity
> >analysts and nonidentity
> >holists who attempts to relate all perspectives of living individuals
> >together, not merely subjectivistic hiercharies of metaphysical concepts,
> as
> does the former.