Seriously: we’ve divided the piece into sections. The plan – which may change between now and Friday, when we actually present) is that I will open with a general introduction to the core question of how a secular theory understands the possibility for critical sensibilities to arise, once the notion of a “god’s eye point of view” has been abandoned, and the theory attempts to understand critical sensibilities as both somehow generated by human practices, and yet also as possibly reacting back against those practices in a way that can meaningfully be discussed as “normative” (as opposed, say, to mechanistically causal). Both Habermas and Brandom’s projects can be understood as attempts to do such a thing, by examining (in slightly different ways) the implications of linguistic practices (of slightly different sorts).

L Magee will then take over, and discuss a particular exchange between Brandom and Habermas, giving their perception of where they disagree with one another, and the implications of that disagreement. Our take is that there are genuine disagreements, and also a bit of pure and simple talking past one another – so LM will try to bring out those points.

I’ll then take the concluding section of the talk, to step back from Habermas and Brandom’s perception of what’s at stake, and contextualise the discussion against some other issues and options that don’t arise directly in their debate (particularly around the issue of whether either theorist is adequately “reflexive” in my sense, and whether the focus on linguistic practice specifically is the most productive focus).

This is assuming, of course, that we don’t recast everything between now and Friday (which, with me, is always something of a risk…). Poor LM…