BHA: habermas

[Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx>]

Man o man am I sorry I brought Habermas into this!

Colin, you wrote:

>...but this is different from the original claim that the asserter must be
>committed to his/her assertion.

I thought we'd got this cleared up!  The point for Habermas -- which I only
mentioned because it seemed like a curious inverse of the deflationary
position -- is not, not, not, *NOT* that nobody ever lies.  Or is ironic.
Or does all *sorts* of things with language, other than honestly assert
things.
Not, not, not!

The argument, as I understand it, is *rather* that the use of language to
honestly and straightforwardly assert things is *logically* prior, and
necessarily so, to other uses.  Quite a hefty claim, and not necessarily a
valid one, but nothing in there about any given speaker, and whether we
should take her at her word (no pun intended).

Yes?

R.




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---