> >>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.
=========
A free choice on his part; it's stipulative/prescriptive in it's own
right and is not a *necessary* presupposition. What's
non-cumminicative relations? The last sentence is obviously false,
even without Justin's pragmatism. Vitrutally all of history refutes
it.
>
>
> >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
========
Yes we can analyze grammar without looking at 'ideal' cases.
Grammarians do it all the time.
Ian