>But you _of course_ are not going to convince either me or Justin of the
>truth of your (or H's position). That can't be done by argumentation.
Well, to off to hell with you then. If this is your (or Justin's) perspective *before* hearing arguments contrary to your position, then be damned. You are correct, an argument can't change the mind of a block of wood. However, the moment that any human beings crawls enough out of the shell or stops dragging their knuckles on the ground they *have to be* open to new experience otherwise they'd die, probably rather quickly. Carrol - every single day, each moment of your life, you are engaged in the attempt to understand your reality. If you talk to someone, you are trying to make yourself understood (at least).
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.
I do not mean to say that these things aren't subject to debate, they are - but we cannot refute any of these positions without making utter nonsense of our modern reality.
Out of these 'facts' - we can derive a series of things. First, that understanding has something to do with validity. Something can be said to be understood when both parties share a similar understanding. Second, one it is determined that we share an understanding about something, say, the definitions of the words that we are using, we can - if we desire - try to reach and agreement about things: truth claims, normative claims and so on. We can only do this by extending the process of understanding beyond a shared lexicon. This necessarily entails reason giving and taking. This is a latent potential inherent to our capacity to understand things.
It is clear that you have tried to understand what I'm talking about. It is also clear that you are putting forward counter-claims to the claims that I've been raising. You have done so because, implicitly, you have said "No, that's not true" to my claims. Now, you are providing a rejoinder to my claims with claims of your own: and anticipating a yes, that is correct, or no, that is incorrect response. You have already entered into the discursive process *identical* to the one that Habermas describes. You have not put for the claim, in the form of a proposition, that arguments cannot convince people of the truth of Habermas's position, which is that arguments can potentially be used to convince people.
Carrol: Arguments do not convince people.
There are two potential responses to this:
Yes, that is correct. No, that is incorrect.
If I say yes, I have accepted the validity of an argument that arguments do not convince people. In other words, I have accepted your truth claim as valid based on the idea that you could, if asked, provide reasons for making such a claim. In doing so, I have proven myself wrong, because implicitly I have been convinced by an argument.
If I say no, I reject your validity claim on the basis that you lack sufficient reasons for making this claim. I will ask you about them and provide counter-arguments if necessary.
There are other responses, yes and no, neither yes nor no. But these responses require clarification as well, since it is not self-evident what they mean. This can only be done by providing more information.
Habermas calls this process moral.
The actor who opts out of this process by taking up instrumental actions still relies on this process in order to understand things with other people. In other words, their instrumental attitude is parasitic to the necessary processes involved in coming to an understanding with other people.
You can refuse to response to this post, as a refusal to play the game. That's fine. You'll have your reasons for doing so.
ken