>CB: I'm still in agreement with Ken's statement, but asking why isn't this
>obvious. ? You are saying that even a lie or misrepresentation requires
>that the meaning of the lie be understood. I agree.
>
>I still don't feel informed of something new that I didn't know already
>when it is said that communication is done to be understood. If Habermas
>says this , I agree, but don't see how it is profound or a philosophical
>incite. Seems common sense , not philosophy.
It is one thing to say it, it is another thing to believe it, and it is another to demonstrate why it cannot be otherwise without resorting to some sort of pathetic ontology.
ken