david schenk wrote:
> As I understand it, the limits of rationality are the limits of
> intelligibility and the limits of logical possibility. To violate them is
> to abandon the very business of sense-making, to say nothing of
> truth-tracking. Therefore, to "transgress" rationality is just to utter
> either:
>
> (1) supervacuous (and ultimately meaningless) rubbish, or;
> (2) a demonstrably false set of propositions (i.e. propositions
> that are either logically false or else mutually
> contradictory)
>
> Is there a third alternative I'm missing? Honestly, I'm just not aware of
> any....
1. what you say here seems to be almost exactly what habermas -
-paraphrasing (badly) fraser--says, but note that, in relation to
derrida, for example, habermas drops the either, and argues that
what derrida says is BOTH vacuous rubbish AND demonstrably
false. and such from the prophet of reason!
2. a 'logical proposition': derrida is not lyotard is not baudrillard is
not bataille is not foucault is not nietzsche.
shrug shrug
campbell jones
university of warwick