>Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>> > Derrida and Foucault are just fooling around. Habermas doesn't like it and
>> > thinks it conservative, but his real worry is a return to slaughter,
>> > anti-humanism, and destruction. He sees kernels of this in each and every
>> > vindication of irrational thought, and he defends a theory of
>>rationality -
>> > which if even the smallest pinprick were to be taken seriously -
>>would make
>> > the devastation which has become common, unthinkable.
>
>Miles Jackson:
>> In fact, the implementation of "rationality" in actual human life, like
>> religious beliefs, has led to a great deal of misery in human history.
>> Every modern nation-state requires a regime of rational, calculated
>> bureaucratic procedures; every multinational corporation is in fact
>> a paradigm of action based on rational calculation. To say that the
>> problems we face in the world today--massive maldistribution of
>> resources, exploitation of labor, environmental abuse--can be resolved
>> by creating a universal "theory of rationality" seems hopeful at
>> best. I would argue, contra JH, that it is the universalization of
>> rationality in everyday life settings--work, school, prison, govt--
>> that is a crucial component of the various forms of inequality and
>> domination we see in the world today.
>
>Habermas must mean, by "rationality", something complete
>different from logic or _ratio_, if he thinks it's any defense
>against evil. Perhaps it's a religious concept?
Some people have faith in liberalism (grounded in communication as reason-giving with freedom, equality, & fairness in the case of Habermas). For all his loud protestation in favor of the rights & liberties of liberal democracy, Justin isn't one of them, being too worldly for faith of the sort preached by Ken.
Yoshie