>
>I don't understand the hostility to a theorist that has provided a
>framework - by all means superior to that provided by almost any other
>theory - which forbids, as a matter of practice and theoretical coherency,
>alienation, exploitation, domination, control and violence to all human
>beings.
The values are commendable and I share them. I am less hostile to JH as theorist than unexcited by him. I haven't found his concerns andd approaches particularly fruitful. The extended argument we have had here has done little to make me think that I was mistaken about my appraisal.
Habermas has managed to demonstrate a clear link between
>everyday
>life, which is distorted by various forms of power, freedom, solidarity,
>autonomy and happiness.
So far I have failed to understand this link or thedeminstration.
>
>Anyone who identifies Habermas as a defender of liberalism simply has
>either not read anything he's written or not understood anything they've
>read.
I don't so identify him, but I am an unashamed liberal in politics.
>
>If I said that Marx was an economist living in London - who amassed a great
>deal of wealth by exploiting his workers and fighting for free trade, I
>wouldn't hear the end of it.
Yeah, cause you woulda confused him with Engels, who did amass some wealth exploiting his workers and (like Marx, who was not, however rich, and whom Engels supported) who did fight for free trade.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp