I am clueless, This seems to beg all the questions that I said it it. I am, say, a slavemaster. I say, Slave, build me a pyramid. You, the slave, say,, You know, Habermas teaches that you can't say that and expect to be understood without implicitly presupposing that we are free and equal particpants in a noncercive speech situation, so even talking to me shows that you are committed to the view that you have no right to give that command.
Well, apart from the fact that we have nothing but assertion tos hwo that there is any such presupposition, the master says, that's nice, even if so, I am not motivated to treat you equally in a noncercive situation, and so the ideal to which you refer is idle because you have shown nothing through which it could be realized. It is utopian in the bad sense. Therefore (threatens with whip), get cracking on that pyramid!
It also provides 'the
>glue' that
> > knits meaning, validity, and reasoning. Without this idealization,
>there
> > would be no link between these things.
I think there is no glue that knits meaning and validity--as I have explained to you, in my view that confuses semantics with epistemology. As far as reasoning goes, do you mean logic or psychology? I would say that justification has to do with logic just because we wouldn't treat as a justification something that we recognized violated the principles of logic, e.g., implied a contradiction, or something like that. And why? Well (the pragmatust speaks), logic works. If you don't use it, you don't get what you want. This is the acse whether or not we agree, or are in an ideal noncercive situation. See here Goodman on The Justification of Deduction in Fact Fiction and Forecast.
> >
> > 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.
Yeah, but not that we communicate under ideal speech conditions. What does that have to do with it? In my book, I just figured that you might grasp the truth conditions of my propositions.
>The idealizations of speech are the
> > grammar of communication. We can make the explicit, just like the
>grammar
> > of a language.
This is just assertion and bad analogy. If I doubt that you need grammar for speech, you can show me the parts pf speech, the sentrence structure, and challenge me to explain how anything more than rudimentary communication is possible without using verbs, nouns, etc. But in response to the claim, how can we communicate without invoking an ideal speech situation, I say that we do it all the time, and you have not explained how it is even implicated in communication, much less necessary for it. Moreover, grammar isa ctual, and according to you, the ISS is merely ideal, so the analogy fails that way too.
> >
> >
> > We can write poetry or write a thesis without having much conscious
> > knowledge of grammar. But that doesn't mean grammar doesn't exist,
Right, but since the ISS doesn't exist, how is this helpful?
> >
> > 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.
But grammar is actual. Look! This sentence has a structure!
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp