> > the subject has to choose reason before using it.
In the primordial Freudian sense, sure. We 'choose' consciousness rather than remaining unconscious. Not much of choice if you ask me. But I can see it in my minds eye...
Thug: "You're language or your life!"
Me: "No!"
Thug: "Thank you."
>But if Habermas wants to reject this, he must attribute to
>_ratio_ some sort of divine afflatus which keeps it from going
>"bad" -- a god.
Nope. Habermas's doesn't want to see the world go to hell, but he acknowledges that it can, and that would be the end of the world as we know it. So, if that's god, I say it is a pretty pathetic god.
> Yet since he knows better than to do this
>out of hand -- there are too many examples of reason being
>made to serve ugly passions -- he posits instead an imperfect
>middle-class sort of god. A clever move, but it won't do, as
>far as I'm concerned. It has the same dubious goodness all
>tools possess.
You know, this is just amusing, so I'm not going to comment.
There have been lots of theologians who have appropriated Habermas's work, saying that one must communicative with the divine within before being able to communicate with others. Habermas thinks this is nonsense, and he says so in his responses to various theologians.
ken
ps. I was extracting Habermas's understanding of religion. I don't stand by it; being a religionist I have a more differentiated approach.