>"there is no alternative"--man, you sound like somebody at a WTO meeting!
>The long history of our existence on this planet has shown quite clearly
>diverse social patterns and diverse linguistic and nonlinguistic
>strategies for communication. You're taking the patterns of interaction
>in a specific social setting--a graduate philosophy seminar, more or
>less--and then treating this language use (reason-giving, unforced
>consensus, etc) as fundamental to all communication. You need to
>get out more, I guess: every day people in diverse cultures
>contradict each of the supposed necessities you list above. And
>then if they don't talk like philosophers, well, they just don't
>measure up to the Universal Standards for Communication.
you're still not understanding that it has nothing to do with a seminar. people give reasons in other cultures. Why doesn't it rain? The rain god must be unhappy. How was the earth created... yadda yadda.
These are reasons, are they not?
Rationalization has to do with bringing things that we take for granted--norms, mores, cultural beliefs, ideologies--into the open for inspection, questioning, challenge.
these happen in other cultures. i don't know if i want to say not as much as in this culture be/c i don't know and it sounds awfully eurocentric to say it. so, if you know of cultures in which no one ever questions the taken-for-granted in their culture, perhaps you have an example?
perhaps a more concrete example would help me understand what you mean by other cultures not doing the above.
kelley