>>The rejoinder would be, we always already presuppose this ideal, or some
>>such approximation of this idea, whenever we speak. The ideal does not
>>motivate, it is the equivalent, I think, of a Kantian postulate.
>
>OK, if the ideal does not motivate, then what force does it have?
It is the utopian aspect of communication. Habermas's uses it as a normative ground, arguing that because we presuppose our communicative relations are, well, communicative, we can use this as a benchmark for non-communicative relations via critique. It also provides 'the glue' that knits meaning, validity, and reasoning. Without this idealization, there would be no link between these things.
>You say, we presuppose it--actuallly, here and how. How? Because our
>communication is distorted by power if we don't? But, as Carol noted,
>"distorted" presupposes a norm, and the question here is whether the fact
>that communication occurs under certain conditions described in the ideal
>speech situation has any normative force.
It is built into the structure of communicating. When you typed this last post, you assumed, warranted or not, that I would understanding it - or at least potentially understand it. The idealizations of speech are the grammar of communication. We can make the explicit, just like the grammar of a language.
>OK, but it's obviously possible for masters to communicate with slaves and
>vice versa, without any ideal conditions obtaining. ("Build me a pyramid!"
>"Yes, boss.") If we wish to explain communication of this sort, how is the
>ISS the least bit illuminating?
We can write poetry or write a thesis without having much conscious knowledge of grammar. But that doesn't mean grammar doesn't exist, nor does it mean that I don't formulate grammatical sentences.
If I say that language has grammar, you won't likely complain (and we can only analyze grammar in terms of 'ideal' cases, not unlike a biology class looking at a 'prototypical' diagram). The same goes for communication. There is a 'grammar' - an 'ideal' case that we can study, learn about and, sometimes, if we know what that grammar is, we can communicate better. At least if I knew how to use a semi-colon properly; my work would probably be a bit more coherent. Right?
ken