I am so impressed with the rest of my classmates- you all seem to know what the heck all of these guys are talking about....i, on the other hand, am completely lost! Reading page after page of this stuff is hurting my brain! Anyway, here goes my blog on the whole thing--please do not read this if you have a clue on what is going on in this essay, for my blog will probably just confuse you and send you right back to the beginning of this class (when none of us knew what was going on in the world of Habermas) .
One thing that Flyvbjerg does clear up for me is the differences in Habermas and Foucault. What i got from the reading is that Flyvbjerg thinks that Habermas' theories, although sound great, offer no exact instructions on how to get there. Yes, Habermas has these five requirements (on discourse ethics), but i do not know that there is a sole on this earth that can fulfill all of them. The biggest requirement that is a problem for Flyvbjerg is the 4th: power neutrality. He states at that Habermas' idea of a democracy lacks what should be at the core: Power!
As i understand it, is does Habermas think that the Constitution is a work in progress? A Document that we can go in and re-write after all these years? So am i on Foucault's side? i have absolutely no idea!!!!
It seems that Flyvbjerg thinks we should all listen to Machiavelli (another person that went over my head in Eng 306).
Overall, i tend to agree with Flyvbjerg ( i think)--that Habermas has all of these utopianthoughts, theories, ideas---but they are far-fetched, and he doesn't give us any ideas on how to reach that utopian dream.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
To be honest with you, I tried reading everyone's blogs, and I am confused just as I was in the beginning... but I am glad you mentioned how frustrating it was to read his work. I literally have a headache... :)
Post a Comment