# 1025
"'I agree with Apel on four fundamental insights. (A) that speaking, communicating, arguing are purposeful actions (subclasses of action exhibiting the same general categories characteristic of all action); (B) his transformation of Kantian transcendental philosophy from a ‘solipsistic’ starting point of a lone subject to an intersubjective, if you will ‘public,’ starting point, in recognizing that all philosophizing is, undeniably and inescapably so, done in and with a public language; (C) that all contentious truth claims, i.e. claims that some proposition in question or in dispute is true (or not), can be settled only in the course of an argumentation and that this cannot be denied on pain of contradiction; and (D) that argumentation, demonstrating a commitment to the truth, presupposes and involves the acceptance of an ethic. […] But any actual agreement is no guarantee of truth. Both (or all) agreeing disputants may still be wrong. So, and in this I agree with Apel (and Peirce), a truth-claim is indeed made vis-à-vis an indefinite community of arguers and hence any actual agreement always remains open to future challenges.' — Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe (in private correspondence with Norbert Slenzok)"