Americans Protest NATO'S War in Yugoslavia -- June 5, 1999
[ Home | Contents | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
"Our modern revelation may be a depressing revelation, but at least it is a demythologizing revelation. If the world is terrible, at least we know that our fathers were fools to think otherwise, and that everything they believed and cherished was a lie, or at best superstition" (Hilary Putnam, Human Face, p.136).
"If we believe in the creative effect of contact and collision, connection and exchange, then we require a medium, a way of writing which will live with the impact and conflict of communication between ideas" (Myerson, Rhetoric, Reason and Society, 1994:4).
From: Azalia Figueroa
Date: 9/9/99
Time: 7:20:40 PM
Remote Name: 130.68.108.76
George Myerson illustrates various meanings for "dialogic rationalism." However, within his critiques about the other theorists I was able to recognize the main meaning. Primarily, Myerson focuses on the ideology of reason without any limitations. In other words, to Myerson reason is something that constantly changes according to various viewpoints that are presented each and everyday. As he describes it reason "is not a finished project because it requires progression." He emphasizes that science is a requirement in the development of dialogic rationalism, but that science as well interprets reason in various forms, according to the way it is applied. Ultimately, Myerson is able to present the meaning but explaining that dialogic rationalism is a good dialogue with an effective logical pattern and with educational thinking that arrives at a reasonable conclusion. In addition, Myerson in no way or form denigrates non-educational thinking because the key in dialogic rationalism is to have a strong argument with facts.
Furthermore, Myerson acknowledges the fundamental contributions of the other theorists. He starts with Habermas, who he strongly disagrees with, and explains that Habermas concentrates on the concept of reason in a communicative manner. Myerson feels the communication is important, but Habernas is unable to relate the communication theory with that of the historic stories that he presents. The "Enlightment" for example, is one that Myerson can't agree with because he applies it more to modern life and not to what it actually is. This signifies that the correlation the Habernas presents is unable to exhibit the true meaning of communication. On the other hand, Myerson relates a little more to Hilary Putnam because Myerson believes that to some extent dialogic rationalism is a mixture of language, thought and reality. Still, Myerson is unable to completely agree with Putnam because like Habernas, Putnam feels that knowledge depends on values. Myerson on the contrary, believes that the wider conception of knowledge doesn't depend on experience but on the argument that is presented. Next, Myerson explains that Anthony Giddens introduces and emotional way to look at rationalism. This is mainly because the value of respect in open communication is the key player in an interaction. Giddens as a social theorist believes that "intimacy" is essential, but Myerson states that "reasoning is not supreme in human affairs or interactions as Giddens makes it appear. So then we move to Genevieve Lloyd who is a complete feminist. Her critical theory takes the Hegelian idea that is parallel to the ideology of equality. This signifies that men and women are not treated equally because they don't see themselves equally. However, she mentions a very good point and that is that the differences between men and women are what connects them and these causes a search for reason. Myerson feels that her contribution is a motivation to search for a better reason to understand the reasoning of men and women without major differences. Last, but not least John Rawls has contributed the political theory which can in a way relate to the democratic reason that Myerson talks about at the beginnig of the book. This is because both give the opportunity for the individual to reason with certain limitations. That is "you just can't say what you wan't to say." The political theory is less dialogic because Rawls sees reason as a "personal capacity." He believes that differences can lead to useful developments. Myerson disagrees with this because he believes that at some point we all come to an agreement without realizing it until we modify our train of thought. In other words, not because you agree with someone else means you are wrong or losing the debate, but that you are understanding his/her point of view.
In all, Myerson speaks about the "dynamic possibilities" that take place in dialogic reasoning. He mainly disagrees with Habermas because Habermas doesn't show this feeling of change. Habermas likes to relate reason to philosophy, sociologyk, anthropology and psychology all in one without showing the variations. Also, Myerson mentions that even though he considers science a component of dialogic reasoning, he realizes that science is proof that no matter how much we try to reason we will always make mistakes and this is why science has fail us because we are not as rational as we think we are. If we were we would have found a cure for AIDS a long time ago. But as Myerson mentions, everything including reason requires progress and progress can then lead to reason. Ultimately, the meaning for dialogic rationalism is a search that will constantly exist because there will always be an argument and there will always be a point of view. Logical or not there will always be an opinion.