Davey Neubauer: Flyvjberg

Huh!!!!!!!!
that is my main response as i tortue myself by reading this article, it seems to me that this guy Flyvjberg makes a really complicated set of texts even more complicated, which is really really frustrating in my opinion. I did get that Habermaus thought Kant was noble for his efforts in "developing a universal rational foundation for democratic institutions" (paraphrse). In otherwords he thought that Kant was right in trying to establish a universal system where people could come together and talk about the important issues and always come to a rational conclution. Habermas says Kant was wrong, but never gives any reasons or ways that these problems could be fixed. This is very hypicritical of Habermaus and I think childish to point out that someone else was wrong but not point out how to fix it. Maybe the reason fro this lack of conviction about what to do is that he could not find a definate truth about how to fix this problem.
Now Flyvbjerg also states that Foucolt says that Habermaus was too norrow minded when it comes to Kant and that

“[I]f the Kantian question was that of knowing what limits knowledge has to renounce transgressing,” says Foucault, “it seems to me that the critical question today has to be turned back into a positive one . . . The point, in brief, is to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessary limitation into a practical critique that takes the form of a possible transgression.” This entails an obvious consequence, according to Foucault, namely that “criticism is no longer going to be practiced in the search for formal structures with universal value, but rather as ahistorical investigation.”

what in the name of Sam's Hill is Foucault talking about here i get that unlike Herbermas he does not believe in absolute truth but I have no idea what the heck is going on here. Turn what into a positive one. It seems to me that just because these big "philosophers use big words does not mean they sre so smart. In other words just because these guys are dealing with complicated issues doesn't mean they have the right to discuss them in such complicated terms. If that was the case then they shouldn't of published books and just left their thoughts for discusion in far out smoking rooms in their lush houses were "briight men" discuss why they are so much smarter than the rest of us. I hope i can better understand in class on monday, cause all three of these guys are drving me nuts with their lack of respect for the common man. In other words talk in english please.