Theology (was Re: lbo-talk-digest V1 #4736)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

At 3:37 PM -0700 7/30/01, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>We coordinate our action with other people. This is irrefutable.
>Human beings have the capacity to learn. This is irrefutable.
>Language is inherent to cognitive development. This is irrefutable.
>Linguistic interaction constitutes the medium of our capacity to 
>understanding. This is irrefutable.
>When we seek to understanding something with someone, we presuppose, 
>like it or not, that understanding (of some sort) is possible. This 
>is irrefutable.

At 9:56 AM -0400 8/9/01, Gordon Fitch wrote:
>I don't know about anyone else, but I mentioned communication
>among primitive organisms and so on to show that communication
>was not, materialistically speaking, purposed on understanding.
>Thus I attempted to refute Habermas as represented, but it
>seems Habermas is irrefutable since if one representation is
>refuted, two more appear in its place.

At 4:43 PM -0700 8/13/01, Miles Jackson wrote:
>So no matter what anyone says or does--Habermas is correct.  Isn't this
>a bit facile?  I'm going to develop a theory that people speak because
>a little angel whispers the words in their ears.  Look, every time
>people speak, I've got more evidence for the existence of these
>invisible angels.  Next time Ken posts--see, I'm right!  The angels
>exist!

No room for argument about argument 
("irrefutable...irrefutable...irrefutable...irrefutable...irrefutable"), 
so I gather Habermas is for some God, & his theory of communicative 
action, theology.


:-0

Yoshie