However there is no certainty that Habermas here, or the sciences in general, have NOT imported aesthetic means (so to speak). Which means, Habermas cannot provide a justification of his formal pragmatic argument *unless* one already believes that such justifications are possible (hence, his question begging). In effect, the only people that will agree with Habermas are those that share his particular moral imaginary (and beg the question with him). In other words - a democratic ethos is the backdrop to his logically trivial observation about the presuppositions of language. They are only presuppositions for people who believe they are presuppositions. Remember, Habermas is deriving a universalist ethic from this position. My point is only this: as a universalist position, it fails. Yes, *I* agree that language can be used in such a way that we can reach an agreement about something, relatively justified ("strong hermeneutics" is a stupid term but one that has been used here) and normatively binding. But I already believe in the power of reason to sort through these things.
Also if arguing against Habermas means providing support for his position then it seems to me this does involve rejecting counter evidence in advance. Since it is presupposed that Habermas is right that there is a performative contradiction in arguing against him then of course it will follow that the counter arguiment itself supports his claim. The evidence, the counter argument supports his theory on the assumption his theory is true. So the well is poisoned via question begging.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message ----- From: Kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>; <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>; <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Ethical foundations of the left
> At 04:54 PM 7/29/01 -0400, Kelley wrote:
> >At 12:01 PM 7/29/01 -0500, Ken Hanly wrote:
> >>Well what it shows is that Habermas apparently has not studied logical
> >>fallacies such as poisoning the wells. Any evidence against his theory
is
> >>rejected in advance since according to his theory it would exemplify the
> >>very conditions his theory proclaims as necessary.
>
>
> this is not what poisoning the well means. and, in fact, evidence is used
> to support his claims. the only way you can have concluded this is that
you
> don't know what the ideal speech situation is. i didn't think i had to
> explain that one since those who have an opinion, except carrol, claim to
> have read H. what H is saying is that when you engage in argumentation you
> are, in fact, invoking the ideal speech situation. our arguments against
> him are evidence in support of his claims about the ISS. the evidence
isn't
> rejected but shown to be supporting his theory.
>
> >