tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8093952125520595733.post7163951733362400897..comments2023-06-09T16:08:53.446+02:00Comments on Political Theory - Habermas and Rawls: John Searle attacks Jürgen HabermasThomas Gregersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11528276338463425307noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8093952125520595733.post-22809378032785155042012-07-08T17:10:05.019+02:002012-07-08T17:10:05.019+02:00I think Searle attacks here the habermasian interp...I think Searle attacks here the habermasian interpretation of agreement as a final end in communication, in the sense of an objective of the hidden logic of language.<br />But that´s not even a new critique. Just the old debate on Habermas concept of Consensus. In my opinion the account Searle uses in his social ontology doesn´t change his previous approach in Speech Acts: no normativity is to be analysed as a constitutive feature of language, because it derives from our institutional decisions, or whatever he may call our speech act in the social contexts.Arynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8093952125520595733.post-36233170256004170502012-06-30T03:30:08.873+02:002012-06-30T03:30:08.873+02:00Searle has not hit the mark here. His error is a ...Searle has not hit the mark here. His error is a common one. For Habermas, communicative action is --oriented towards-- common agreement. That agreement does not need to be present for this to be the case. Habermas explains distorted communication very well. <br /><br />There may be speech acts that are not interpreted in reference to validity but those that are get a very rich description from Habermas.Murfmenschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00031877154740991965noreply@blogger.com