part of Habermas studies
Teleological action is a basic kind of action in Habermas's theory. This is commonly not appreciated because his critique of instrumentalism has been so important to his work. Yet, all action has purposive aspects, and communicative action commonly serves large scale purposes. In On the Pragmatics of Communication (OPC), he writes (in a footnote):
Communicative action is always embedded in the teleological action contexts of the individuals respectively participating in it. (213)
If you search the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an article on “Good,” you primarily get an article on “Value Theory” and find out at the end that the best view of ‘good’ (e.g., “X is good”) is that it’s about what’s better as such (“X is better than...” other relevant options in consideration).
So, choosing to focus here on a notion of “the better way” is not about an egoistic desire by me to assert my own preferences about anything in particular. Yet, ‘good’ usually is about particulars: a way among ways, in this case. Several options are probably good, but some are better. One might even be best.
March 31, 2017: This was a placeholder for an anticipated discussion. Now, it’s archival. But the placeholder status remains valid, to be rewritten (or rather written) relative to the above title, as part of the “advancing community” area of gedavis.com (which will retain the present footer here and lose this present note).
August 2013:
I'll start by simply pointing to three old discussions of mine at my "discursive stances" page:
- “Theory” and “Practice”
- Policy: the concept
- Well-being and Public Policy
Other old discussions on that page aren't directly relevant to this topic.
Next, I'll discuss the earlier-mentioned JAMA article in detail. That would be a beginning part of the "healthy regions…” Project (an approach to public policy generally). But I can't feel I'm reasonably ready to delve into all that without a sense of good as such, which can be regarded simply enough, but quickly involves complex conceptual issues deserving of appreciation—an integrity of complexity. So, what's to be done with "philosophy for good"? Philosophy for good—> public health as philosophical topic—> public policy generally (as philosophical venture).
[To be continued—really, yet to be begun.]
This posting is associated with the “advancing community” area of gedavis.com.
a sense of humanistic union
This project is to be developed over some months in light of material I've drafted over several years. It'll become a central part of gedavis.com.
After giving more substance to the earlier posting, “philosophy for good” (which is barely begun), I want to do a thought experiment on public health policy, premised on a short JAMA article today. But I’ll do some prefacing now.
I want to pursue a philosophically-informed notion of "the" Good relative to interest in durability of philosophical work after metaphysicalism. Given that there's no eternal Order to Our evolving (other than the evolving of developed senses of Order), what's the "nature" of philosophy such that discursive inquiry may durably contribute to Our evolving?
This is a vague question with an impossibly conclusive answer. But it's a useful question (good for inquiry), and pursuing it can be fruitful (importantly practical).
And maybe practical inquiry can lead into a large scale project that’s worthwhile.
[To be continued]
I was enthused by the appearance in English of Media of Reason, reviewed last week, which may be closer to my post-Habermasian interests than anything I’ve read before, if the review serves the author well.
August 14, I posted to “my” Habermas discussion list about the book: first thoughts in light of the review. Since the archival version at the site has garbage characters for commas, apostrophes and quote marks, the entire posting is below. Then, I’ll move on to what I wrote to Vogel today, after he responded warmly to an earlier note from me. The August 14 posting:
We use a fork. I often think that chopsticks are more practical for some foods. But not for rice. However, I learned to eat rice at a good rate with chopsticks.
In either case, one gets to the point where there are just a few cooked grains left on the plate or in the bowl. Should I eat them? This is difficult to do with a fork. (Some bread helps—or, if no one's looking: one's finger; better to leave the little buggers?) It's easier with chopsticks, if you value each grain.
It's also easier to value each grain with chopsticks.
