> i agree that ken's made some mistakes in explaining what he's saying of course and, i argue, puts to much ON habermas for me to feel that he's actually engaged in an even-handed elaboration of his work.
?? First you defend me, then you make fun of what I've said, without even a nod to where I've opted out of coherency. -----------------------
it's the neurosis thing, ken. i didn't make fun of what you said. i have always complained that i think you want to get to the meat of your critique with habermas that you don't take time to elaborate. but it is true, it is very difficult to try to elucidate H's work in the course of a few hundred word and while pursuing what were, from my perspective, stupid examples.
when you gave up agreeing on nationalized health care as an example for the red ball, i wanted to scream! :) the nationalized health care example was actually and EXCELLENT example.
i just don't have time to give you what you deserve. but, i would be happy to make time to do it, if it matters.
and yes, i agree, justin kept throwing up pragmatist concerns, because that's what he knows, not because these were good challenges to your argument.
maybe i'll sit down later and oint a few things out.
kelley