HABERMAS' IDEAL SPEECH SITUATION

[kenneth.mackendrick@utoronto.ca]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 12:09:08 -0400 Chris Latiolais <latiolai@kzoo.edu> wrote:

(edited)

> ...JH draws attention to... artworks as establishing solidarity... What would 
be "pathological" from JH's perspective would be the inability or unwillingness 
to use the rationality potential of communicative interaction... So... irony... 
may well do a tremendous amount of critical work...

Sorry about the edits, but it is easier this way. Thanks for the clarification, 
to belabour the point...

For Habermas wit, fiction, and irony (see page 332 TCA, Vol 2) are 
manifestations of the confusion between matters of subjectivity, 
intersubjectivity and objectivity. In short, from the perspective of a theory 
of communicative action, they are irrational whenever they are employed within 
the confines of an argument - irrational (pathological) in the sense of being 
"concealed forms of strategic action." For the most part, I agree with your 
analysis, which I don't think actually contradicts much of what was said. Yes, 
Habermas argues that works of art, poetry and so on do contribute to 
motivational questions: but, in the final analysis, these things do not hold 
any normative force and their introduction into discourses is nothing less than 
distorting - which is what I meant when I said there is an obligation implied 
by Habermas that they must be translated into argumentative claims.

communicatively incompetent,
ken