> > 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.
Ok, you're probably right about that. I retract the last sentence there.
>Yes we can analyze grammar without looking at 'ideal' cases.
>Grammarians do it all the time.
>Ian
Right. But ideal cases are invaluable, right? I mean, really - I shutter to think of surgery without someone using an 'ideal' case as a guide. Imagine cutting someone head open to find a splinter in their foot. Ouch.
ken