Re: BHA: Truth, Lies irony and In defense of Habermasian Angelism

[M Salter1 <MSalter1@xxxxxxx>]

In a message dated 23/05/98 21:10:18 GMT, Colin writes:

<< We
 all can and do make many assertions to which we are not committed. This was
 the basis of my original slight (in brackets remember) modification of your
 understanding of Habermas ... since I understood you to be
 claiming (and Louis defending) that according to Habermas asserters will
 always be committed to their assertions. Whether or not Jurgen actually
 does mean this is a moot point, but it is clearly not the case. We make
 many assertion to which we are not committed, I mean it seems to me social
 life would be impossible if this were the case. Of course, i accept that
 everyone on this list is an absolute angel. (Perfect cue for Hsabermas's
 angelism) >>


I think this misses the point of what habermas is trying to suggest. if - as a
matter of empirical reality there was never any element of ideological
mismatch between statements about social reality and how the latter appears
experientially, then there would be little point in having any method of
ideology-critique at all. Of course, there will always be insincere and
dishonest assertions by, say, politicians that certain policies represent the
complete and total fulfilment of election promises, yet these assertions can
lack any subjective commitment. The point within the Habermasian scheme of
things is that one cannot enter into a discussion on the basis that this
discrepancy between what we state and what we beleive is an acceptable rule of
the discussion itself. If you or anyone to a discussion forum do not beleive
that I mean what I say when I post a contribution, then what is the point of
responding to it in such a way that seeks to "correct" it (since it may in
fact be correct anyway). The Habermasian test is not that empirically there
must be a perfect angelic congruence between conviction and assertion; but
rather that anyone who tries - within the course of a discussion  - to
generalise such a discrepancy as a working principle of social life itself,
will inevitably violate one of the presuppositions of communication as such.

it is because we are not live the life of angels that we need ideology-
critique etc., and habermas's neo-kantian model - although inferior to that of
many others with the dialectical tradition from socrates to bhaskar - does
attempt to find some transcendental basis for critique. It is this that, for
me, is most problematic since every version seems to smuggle in all-too
historically-specific empirical presuppositions that vitiate its
transcendental status.

Michael


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---