>If it eclipses, how can they fuse? Language is headin' for a holiday
>here Ken. Nobody's 'solved' the 'problem' of other minds in 3,000
>years of philosophy.
when did the problem of other minds become such an issue? is this because of the red ball example? ken! ya shoulda used the health care example. classic logic examples are THE dorkiest.
mein gott! "We cannot 'understand' the 'what' - the semantic content of the systematically distorted expression--without at the same time 'explaining' the 'why'--the origins of systematic distortion itself."
he's addressing this in terms of a specific set metatheoretical controversies in the social sciences:
1. with the rise of science the classical conception of politics changed. Theory was reduced to logically integrated systems of quantitatively expressed, lawlike statements characteristic of natural sciences. "Given a description of the relevant initial conditions, such theories could be used to predict future states of a system; providing the relevant factors were manipulable, they could also be used to produce desired states of affairs."
2. this ideal was adopted in politics. hello to all the econdrone and poli sci wankers on this list. where IS hoover anyway? adopted in sociology too but i don't consort with those types! :)
3. along with this came the focus on objectivism, the focus on technocratic administration, the focus on proceduralism. Practice is reduced to the manipulation, a technical-administrative problem rather than any sort of reflection on WHY THE FUCK WE ARE DOING IT THIS WAY. it goes back to the weber debate. Habermas recasts the distinction between Zweckrationalitaet, instrumental rationality where action is aimed at achieving some ulterior end, and Wertrationalitaet, value rationality, where communicative action (understanding) is good in and of itself.