Habermas's idealizations for discourse ethics could be characterized as Paine on steroids.
But will Levin's book inspire conservative Chicken Littles today to start firing away in the arena of civic debate at Habermas's idealizations for discourse ethics, instead of firing away at Paine's 18th-century thought? I doubt it.
Or will Levin's book inspire conservative Chicken Littles today to fire away at Paine's 18th-century thought? For example, will they say, "Paine's ideas about the rights of man are bunk -- philosophical theory, not fact"?
Oh, boy, we have no rights, because Burke and American conservatives like him don't like Enlightenment philosophical theory, just as certain American conservatives today don't like evolutionary theory. (I deliberately refer to Burke's views as his rationalizations because I do not want to suggest that his views are based in philosophical theory. They are not. His rationalizations are just his rules-of-thumb for practical reasoning about political issues.)
Or will Levin's book inspire conservative Chicken Littles today to say, "There you go again -- sounding utopian -- just like Paine"?
Or to say, "There you go again -- sounding utopian -- just like the Declaration of Independence"?
Or to say, "There you go again -- sounding radical -- just like Paine"?
Or to say, "There you go again -- sounding radical -- just like the Declaration of Independence"?
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
