Oh my goodness!!! I know most of us are English majors, but whoa take it easy on all of the technical terms. Honestly, I am completely lost. I may have read some paragraphs five times each and nothing came out of that.
The only thing I understood was that Habermas has five points in which to create an ideal debate. I agree with Flyvbjerg that yeah he does give us this ideal setting, but he doesn't give us any idea on how to reach this "utopia." Then I understood that Foucault unlike Habermas thinks that society needs resistance and struggle in order to practice freedom. According to Flyvbjerg, Habermas gives us a destination, but no route. Also, that Foucault will give us a course of action toward our ultimate goal, but doesn't necessarily state how to do that or even what will come out of that. Maybe these brilliant minds want us to come up with what their plans are lacking or maybe they just want to confuse the hell out of us. Either way they both have very interesting ideas about the way society should be run or run itself.
With everything else I got so caught up in how difficult the words were that I just read it through without understanding. With that I leave you with a gentle goodnight and two tablets of Aspirin.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment