Cheers, Ken Hanly ;;;;just back from bringing in the firewood.
Rob Schaap wrote:
> I've benefited from it, but I'm outa gas on this one Ken - well, one last
> little splutter, perhaps ...
>
> >> 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.