>Don't reckon it's a fair question to ask, Kel!
it is very fair. if you make an argument then you need to give some evidence, some illustration, analysis. simply asserting something because you think it's true is not acceptable and surely has no place in habermas's schema. you can't maintain that what anyone says is not convincing to you and then go on to refuse to try convince us as to why you think this or why we should pay any attention to you whatsoever.
i apparently have to repeat again that i am tired of being told that i am totalizing anything here and i'm am tired of having you refer to any of it as discourse which you 've done again with reference to what i said..
it might be perfectly possible for much of our eating life to be instinctual and much of our religious life be social. there's no reason to accuse anyone of monadism if, when speaking of religion, they don't speak of instincts involved in praying or imaginig deities.
it's just plainly a hypocrisy to assert that discourse theory is wrong because it's totalizing and turn around and say that your claims are just what you believe and you can't prove them which as you should know has little to do with absolute proof or any sort of claim to absolute knowledge and everything to do with subjecting them to the community of inquirers. if you don't subject your claims and reasons to that community then what are they other than akin to burps at the table --to be ignored or hooted at in the conversation. why? because the assertion of the claim has no intention of engaging others in dialogue. it is fundamentally rude or laughable. it is clearly no discourse aimed at building consensus.
It's a sensible thing to
>think and a useful foil for what I perceived as overconfident and one-sided
>'discursivity', that's all.
what you perceived because you were turning everyone into judy. and when we referred to social relations over and over you ignored that and heard discursive. you've again called it discursivity. why? catherine's the only one who unabashedly said that. when yoshie invokes oppression she's talking about capitalism.
>I didn't demand you give me proof that my invocation of natural tendencies
>had been 'fatally' attacked, either. Didn't think you could.
and i never tried to.
>Peter's post about the importance of recognising the possibility that
>theory might leave stuff out - a
in those terms peter's claims are indistinguishable from neo-positivist arguments.
nd that systems theory tends to leave out
>stuff just by positing a system - and that mebbe Marxian dialectics may
>properly be distinguished from mainstream systems theory on this criterion
>alone. People who think like that won't ever be the sort of doctrinaire
>bullies I fear so much.
and people who simply assert that they think what they think because they do and they can't say why are engaging in just as much obscuratism as the doctrinaire bullies by refusing to subject their thinking to the public realm. and i'll be wholly totallizing and unabashedly so and say that it is only through that sort of engagement that we will avoid either form of theology because at least the public realm involves people and dialogue and has some democratic checks built into it. yours and the bullies' are totalitarian.
neighborhood bully according to rob, kelley