& reason

[J.L. Nicholas]

Kenneth writes that


>Perhaps I'm just really thick headed but this seems to be one of the
>most important, controversial, and unanswered questions around.
>I've been poking around Frankfurt for 2 or 3 years now - and
>philosophy in general even less... and the best I have been able to
>come up with is that reason is the capacity to apply, appropriate, use,
>manipulate an idea of logic (noncontradiction) in different spheres (ie.
>outside of math).  In this way their is no "grounding of reason" since
>it is simply a tool, a pattern of thought, that snoops around different
>issues.

But isn't there more to "reason" than "logic?" or why would we distinguish
the two?  "Logic" refers to the rules we use in reasoning - but then only
to a select group doesn't it?
It seems that when we focus on Habermas, as Kenneth does, we cut off
dimensions of reason - aesthetic dimensions (eg. as discussed in Eros and
Civilization by Marcuse) and feminist dimensions (Lloyd's The Man of
Reason).  One of the first step, which Kenneth suggets that he is on, in
this project is to really look at what reason is.
But then again, just because reason is something more than logic does not
mean that it has any grounding, which seems to be what Kenneth wants.
Indeed, logic should have some ground sinmcve it is universal; but
people/cultures seem to have different types of reason.


Kenneth continues
>
>At the end of the day the question(s) of what freedom has been
>gained, what has been lost, who has been killed, and how many
>wounded still find their way into our (my) thoughts.  The role of
>reason must remain, it seems to me, central in our actions and
>thoughts if we are going to make sense of the contradictions and not
>simply let them be the rule - precisely because the rules set the
>questions to be asked and dictate the answers accordingly.
and...
"So again i'll ask the question, which pertains to moral philosophy in
general - what
do we do.  Are we bound by an ethic of responsibility which calls us from
within
(Levinas) or an ethic of principles which coordinate our activities in a
neo-Kantian
fashion (Habermas) - and where does one find solace - in the communicative
coordination of action or the productive response of simply being honest with
oneself (Heller).  And what constitutes the self to make either of these
decisions.
What counts as a good reason if when all is said and done my good reason is
based upon something that i want.  Habermas ends the discussion in consensus,
deconstructionists end the conversation in a leap of faith... but neither
of these
alternatives stikes my fancy."


But who is concerned about this- just philosophers, social theorists,
people on the street?  DOes concern with this lead us anywhere or are we
just deluding ourselves?


sorry, it's late and I can't do more right now than ask questions to which
I wish I had the answers.
Jeffery

Jeffery L. Nicholas
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY. 40506
jlnich1@pop.uky.edu