2619"dialectic" and dialogue (was: Conference)
- Aug 1, 2009Dear Thomas,
Yeah, I too have major problems with Fichte. Hegel addresses these
problems with his accounts of true infinity, the relation of Spirit
to Nature, and the I that is We, and We that is I.
As to "the real interactive elenchic interaction between two actual
interacting persons in dialogue": Plato is obviously a literary
artist, and Hegel is not. But Plato's depiction of dialectic is
ultimately just as abstract as Hegel's seems to be. Cf. the
Parmenides, etc. (Not to mention successors like Plotinus and
Proclus.) Hegel's dialectic seems to me to illuminate innumerable
"real interactions" in which I take part. That was, I think, a major
part of its purpose.
If on the other hand you want to go back literally to _Socrates_, who
didn't write anything.... Well, I can't argue with someone I haven't
met and who left nothing behind him for me to read. ;-)
It seems to me that Kierkegaard, Dewey, Habermas and Levinas all
hypostatize something ("subjectivity," the "actual person,"
"communicative interaction," the "face") that deserves to be
questioned. Is there such a thing in reality? What is "reality"? What
is "actuality"? That's where Plato and Hegel are more helpful.
As for Habermas's unilateral theorizing--this has a good deal to do (I
think) with his failure to recognize that Plato (in the Symposium) and
Hegel had said a lot about the relation between normativity and
"communication," which it might behoove him (Habermas) to respond to.
But Habermas reads Hegel as though he were Schelling ("philosophy of
identity"), and doesn't seem to read Plato at all.
On Jul 30, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Thomas Mether wrote:
> Hmmm, I've been reading Fichte lately. Maybe I have a Fichte
> infection when he has the ego posit the nonego which raises ethical
> questions for me. But I would still wonder if -- and I'm sort of
> taking a Deweyan-Kierkegaardian-Habermasian-Levinasian perspective
> here -- the dialog and dialectic in Hegel is not the real
> interactive elenchic dialectic between two actual interacting
> persons in dialogue that you find with Socrates.
> [I agree with Habermas until he unilaterally comes up with a
> normative account of communicative action -- was it developed via
> communicative action? Dewey, Kierkegaard and Levinas appear better
> tuned in to the fact that what is communication and discourse is
> itself soemthing not predefined but worked out and negotiated in
website: www.robertmwallace.com (Philosophical Mysticism; The God of
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>