[lit-ideas] Re: The meaning of life

Eric Yost wrote:

"Human beings have layerings of motives -- some explicit, some
undiscovered, some adventitious -- that interfere with the "purity" of
an attempt at ideal judgment. The very term "transcendental" reeks of
the sly power grab, the looming, the looking down upon, the lording it
over ... whether in moral judgment or in a swami's meditation."

This is a caricature, perhaps balancing the somewhat enthusiastic
defence by Walter of Kantian transcendental thought.  Here is a more
nuanced account from Habermas that is relevant to this thread:

'Since a philosophy which has become self-critical does not trust
itself any longer to offer universal assertions about the concrete
whole of exemplary forms of life, it must refer those affected to
discourses in which they answer their substantial questions
themselves.  The parties should examine in moral argumentation what is
equally good for all.  But first they must become clear about what the
good is for themselves in their respective contexts.  These ethical
questions in a stricter sense, concerning a life that is worthwhile or
is preferable, can find an answer only in context-dependent discourses
of self-understanding.  These answers will be more differentiated and
more appropriate depending upon how rich the identity-building
traditions are that support self-assurance.'

Habermas' thought isn't always consistent with this admission but here
he is in accord with the Master.


Sincerely,

Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: