The praxis of negation is what remains in the 'spirit of . . . So we find French critics of Habermas ready to abandon liberal politics in order to avoid universalistic philosophy, and Habermas trying to hang on to universalistic philosophy, with all its problems, in order to support liberal politics.
Lyotard debate is the character of modern science.
This seems to say that Rorty finds Lyotard's critique of Habermas on this point a failure one resting, somewhat paradoxically, on Lyotard's failure to understand what's going on in contemporary philosophy of science. I agree with him. They thus define what has the right to be said and done in the culture in question, and since they are themselves a part of that culture, they are legitimated by the simple fact that they do what they do. He is scratching where it does not itch. It would also chime with the criticisms offered by many of Habermas's sympathetic American critics, such as Bernstein, Geuss, and McCarthy.