Quoting Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > John McCreery wrote: > > "Am I, as an anthropologist, committed a priori to treating them with > respect? If so, why not the John Birch Society or Bob Jones > University?" > > Paraphrasing Habermas, yes one is committed a priori to treating them > with a degree of respect since one cannot know in advance what they > might contribute to public discourse. > > Happy birthday John. The claim that "one is committed apriori ...." is somewhat ambiguous. Only for a rationally autonomous agent is such a commitment understood to be apriori (i.e, necessary and universal across all discourse/justification). The heteronomous individual, open to persuasion by epistemically irrelevant grounds - i.e., religion, personal preference, self-interest, consensus and tradition - is unable to differentiate between, in Habermas's lexicon, being "convinced" on the basis of reasons and being "persuaded" on the basis of specifically agent-relative, non-generalizable considerations. Reserving much other commentary on death by powerpoint and the end of dialogical philosophizing in response to 6 recent posts on this topic, due to the recent end of summer session and the consequent deluge of tests, papers, final exams and offers of scotch from anxiety-ridden students, Walter O MUN P.S. I believe my concluding sentence is grammatically correct. (But only in Grman?) I await any educative instruction you all may have. P.P.S Happy Birthday, John. > > Sincerely, > > Phil Enns > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html