>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
Faith is 'grounded' in a fusion of two of the three value spheres I've already outlined, it is, fundamentally, undifferentiated in terms of 'grounding.' In effect, despite protestations to the contrary, faith is not grounded in any 'comprehensible' or philosophical sense of the term ground.
If there is faith to speak of, it is in the irreducible dignity of human beings.
I don't understand the hostility to a theorist that has provided a framework - by all means superior to that provided by almost any other theory - which forbids, as a matter of practice and theoretical coherency, alienation, exploitation, domination, control and violence to all human beings. Habermas has managed to demonstrate a clear link between everyday life, which is distorted by various forms of power, freedom, solidarity, autonomy and happiness.
Anyone who identifies Habermas as a defender of liberalism simply has either not read anything he's written or not understood anything they've read.
If I said that Marx was an economist living in London - who amassed a great deal of wealth by exploiting his workers and fighting for free trade, I wouldn't hear the end of it.
If Habermas work is so bad, then just quote it and let it stand as it is. After all, it will be obvious what the problem is, right? You know, because we don't need explanations, arguments, or understanding. Everything is just so damn obvious and we're all so very smart.
pace, ken