Re: BHA: In defense of Habermasian Angelism

[Colin Wight <Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Howard,

>We use language in a confusing way to say that we are "committed" to an
>assertion or "promise" it.

I not sure if I agree or disagree with this or not, but I am fairly clear
that i wasn't the one to introduce this anyway.

>While we don't need the game game to say so, it is true that when I make a
>promise it is a fact independent of the promise whether I intend the
>performance promised or not.  Similarly when I make an assertion it is a
fact
>independent of the assertion whether I believe it or not.

Yes, this is indeed my position but Louis, and Doug initially, suggested
that the intent of the speaker and the content of the statement were tied
together.

  Assertion means I present such and
>such as so about the world.  Because it has this meaning, and because my
>beliefs are independent of what is asserted, lying is possible.

A lie is only a lie because of the link between what you say and what you
know to be the case.


Anyway, as far as I can see everyone is now arguing my position so I'm
happy. That is that according to Habermas (and Derrida) truth is embedded
in the structure of language and not that the asserter must be committed to
their assertions.

Thanks,



=============================================


Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Wales
SY23 3DA
Tel: (01970) 621769


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---