>> Remember, it's always up for grabs (Habermas's core point), so it'll
>>chop and
>change over time.
>
>For Habermas, the content is always up for grabs - not the *form* of
>rationality.
The form strikes me as logically immanent in democracy. Its essence, even.
>> Epistemologies produce ontologies and ontologies produce epistemologies -
>this stuff changes over time, too - coz it's part of the above, no?
>
>The idea of an ontology that changes over time doesn't make much sense to
>me.
>As far as I can see, historical contingency is the only ontology that makes
>sense (Zizek) or, as Adorno puts it, dialectics is the ontology of a wrong
>state of affairs.
Didn't Jameson say something like 'Historicise everything: the one transhistorical imperative!'? I think Roderick said something like 'why not historicise Habermas?'. I can handle the idea of historically contingent metaphysical truths - it just means that, when it comes to the practical business of living, you have to treat some stuff as 'Big T' True. So, currently being alive, I do. So do you.
Maybe this cop-out is more congenial to the likes of me than it is to a religionist. Anyway, at some stage we have to stop sharpening the theoretical axe, and get the firewood in, eh?
G'night, mate. Rob.