GeekinthePink

I think the whole debate we had between Habermas and Lyotard further confuses the subject. It's as if both sides are not thoroughly defined. Habermas is so busy saying modernism is not thoroughly finished that I feel like he doesn't see that he is going beyond the definition of modernity. And the fact that he doesn't believe anyone is not conservative; that's interesting. I implore some attention toward the media.
See what I was thinking about Habermas is that he refuses to accept things as they are--meaning, if our society is viewed as postmodern, he seems to want to twist the meaning of modern so that it fits the description rather than admit that it's something else. He does that with neoconservativism as well. By saying that everyone is a conservative, what is he changing? Is he changing that big groups of people have very different politics? No--he's just changing the definition to suit his purpose, in my opinion.
Don’t get me wrong—I actually like Habermas and his ideas—but I feel like he’s too stubborn to accept that modernism has changed; and by changed, I mean to a whole different concept. Habermas seems less comfortable with the idea that sometimes you cannot define things. Lyotard describes postmodern as letting us be philosophers and as “presenting the unpresentable”—Lyotard, even though he seems to employ lots of rules and regulations in his writings (which reminds me more of a modernist than a postmodernist) at least is accepting that we cannot put a definable meaning on everything.
Oooh. You know one of the things I was thinking during class? Someone tell Hilary Clinton that Habermas says everyone is a conservative. I would really love to see her face. What would she say? Ooh. And Obama. Yea. That would be too fun.