ABSTRACT
Focusing on differences in Rainer Forst's and my otherwise similar discourse theoretical approaches to power and reason, I argue that Forst's equating all power with “noumenal” (i.e. reasons-mediated) power - the “Forstian bargain” - is flawed and should be resisted. For Forst, reasons are justifiers. This ignores reasons’ multiple rational forces. I propose to respecify “fully noumenal” power as a particular form of power, “discourse-power“, the power of reasoners to uphold or to modify via acts of discursive argumentation their convictions about the genuine value of their reasons.
