Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

If the public does not prefer the better argument....

Expand Messages
  • Gary E. Davis
    .... was it really the better argument? A key point to discursively claiming that argument A is better than argument B is that this is demonstrable from an
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      .... was it really the better argument?

      A key point to discursively claiming that argument A
      is better than argument B is that this is demonstrable
      from an impartial point of view. But the citizen isn't
      under any obligation to take an impartial point of
      view. In fact, it's the converse case: to make a
      perspectival judgment about what s/he believes is in
      the public good (as well as private interest). The
      aggregate of judgments IS the better public argument
      (presuming fairness in derivation of the aggregate
      choice---that so-called will of the people).

      So, if the aggregate preference for is for the
      argument that isn't impartially the best argument,
      what's the basis for claiming that impartiality can be
      a standard for evaluating arguments in a democracy?

      "May the best man win," they say.

      And they do say.


      Gary



      .
    • Tom Gleason
      ... Isn t impartiality a kind of validity claim that exists in every argument? Arguments should influence judgements, but in the simplest idea of a democracy,
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        :-(
        Isn't impartiality a kind of validity claim that exists in every argument?

        Arguments should influence judgements, but in the simplest idea of a democracy, there is no room for *productive* argument (...There is room for disagreement, but the majority wins. There is no rational resolution; power of numbers forces reason to the side; where argument occurs, it is reduced to the lowest common denominator; the best public argument is necessarily the worst possible; what can we all agree on? "me".) --it only allows for an aggregate of limited perspectives, a collective singularity, which could not really be considered a form of inter-subjective reason; it's really a kind of reduction.

        ...

        Tom


        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tom
        And today we see just how more massive is the shadow cast by myth over reason for the thinking of America. ... argument? ... democracy, there is no room for
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          And today we see just how more massive is the shadow cast by myth over
          reason for the thinking of America.

          --- In habermas@yahoogroups.com, Tom Gleason <theorysavage@y...> wrote:
          > :-(
          > Isn't impartiality a kind of validity claim that exists in every
          argument?
          >
          > Arguments should influence judgements, but in the simplest idea of a
          democracy, there is no room for *productive* argument (...There is
          room for disagreement, but the majority wins. There is no rational
          resolution; power of numbers forces reason to the side; where argument
          occurs, it is reduced to the lowest common denominator; the best
          public argument is necessarily the worst possible; what can we all
          agree on? "me".) --it only allows for an aggregate of limited
          perspectives, a collective singularity, which could not really be
          considered a form of inter-subjective reason; it's really a kind of
          reduction.
          >
          > ...
          >
          > Tom
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Gary E. Davis
          The Myth of Reason, the recent PhD thesis by list member Matthew Piscioneri, is available to subscribers as a PDF download—all 370 pages (2 MB) of it!:
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            "The Myth of Reason," the recent PhD thesis by list
            member Matthew Piscioneri, is available to subscribers
            as a PDF download�all 370 pages (2 MB) of it!:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/habermas/files/On_JH/Myth_of_Reason.pdf



            --- Tom <mcdonald928@...> wrote:

            >
            >
            > And today we see just how more massive is the shadow
            > cast by myth over
            > reason for the thinking of America.
            >
            > --- In habermas@yahoogroups.com, Tom Gleason
            > <theorysavage@y...> wrote:
            > > :-(
            > > Isn't impartiality a kind of validity claim that
            > exists in every
            > argument?
            > >
            > > Arguments should influence judgements, but in the
            > simplest idea of a
            > democracy, there is no room for *productive*
            > argument (...There is
            > room for disagreement, but the majority wins. There
            > is no rational
            > resolution; power of numbers forces reason to the
            > side; where argument
            > occurs, it is reduced to the lowest common
            > denominator; the best
            > public argument is necessarily the worst possible;
            > what can we all
            > agree on? "me".) --it only allows for an aggregate
            > of limited
            > perspectives, a collective singularity, which could
            > not really be
            > considered a form of inter-subjective reason; it's
            > really a kind of
            > reduction.
            > >
            > > ...
            > >
            > > Tom
            > >
            > >
            > > ---------------------------------
            > > Do you Yahoo!?
            > > Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
            > www.yahoo.com/a
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
            > removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Gary E. Davis
            Thanks Tom G, Tom M and Fred for your comments. TG Isn t impartiality a kind of validity claim that exists in every argument? G: Sort of, I d say.
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks Tom G, Tom M and Fred for your comments.

              TG> Isn't impartiality a kind of validity claim that
              exists in every argument?

              G: Sort of, I'd say. Impartiality is basically a
              *procedural* stance toward a validity claim. Being
              actually impartial in one's evaluations or estimations
              may be rare, but when one *claims* to be impartial,
              that's a validity claim *about* one's evaluation or
              estimation of something (typically about another
              validity claim). It's a difference between action and
              content of action. I may evaluate assertion A, which
              has whatever content, as either true or false (or
              partially true in its elements). I probably evaluate A
              from some perspective. One perspective would be an
              impartial one (relative to competing interests). You
              might disagree with my evaluation of A and say that it
              was biased. I disagree and say it was impartial.
              *That's* a validity claim about my own evaluation of
              A: *that* it was impartial. It's either true or false
              that my evaluation of A was impartial. But *if* the
              evaluation was impartial, then it was a *way* of
              evaluating A (e.g., via a fair, deliberative balance
              of competing interests relative to universal
              standards). Impartiality itself is a kind of activity,
              which one may validly claim (or invalidly claim)
              actually guided an evaluation.

              Re: the rest of your comments, I'll just say that I'm
              made cynical, too, by so much of what passes for
              process in our democracy.

              Tom M> And today we see just how more massive is the
              shadow cast by myth over reason for the thinking of
              America.

              That's why I indicated the new group resource by
              Matthew.

              TM> "Reason" in the big R metaphysical sense was
              perhaps the wrong term to use. Scientific disclosive
              thinking is not myth, it just seems to tend
              down roads with unacceptable consequences to poor
              thinking.

              G: I completely agree. Also, the claim to reason could
              turn out to have an invalidly ideological status, one
              that is mythical. This could be Matt's sense, relative
              to critique of ideology (and Horkheimer/Adorno).

              Tom M, I'm glad to see that you're back. Aren't you a
              graphic designer? So, too, is Tom G.

              Fred, I appreciate your association to Rawls. I wish
              that the Rawls group had some life to it:

              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rawls/

              The interchange between Rawls and Habermas was
              awesomely complex: Habermas in _Inclusion of the
              Other_ and Rawls at the end of _Political Liberalism_.
              Someday, I'm going to get into that.

              Excuse me, Fred, that the next posting is about links
              you already know about. Time for me to get as odd as I
              really am.

              Gary



              .
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.