From: ccw94-AT-aber.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 09:28:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Bhaskar and Bad Writing...


Dave,

Greetings. No, you haven't unleashed a monster. Matters of style, to a
critical realist, like all matters, are always to a greater or lesser
extent, theory laden. I suppose that in some respects my broad acceptance of
many of RBs arguments might well colour my judgement. In that, I agree with
what he is saying (when I decipher it) and this blinds me to how he is
saying it. Also I do agree that often his arguments are very loose. For
example, the whole of the argument in Dialectic which wants to give absence
prority over presence needs elaborating on, IMHO. I can agree with the
need/existence of an ontological category of absence but don't follow the
arguments or even see the need to give one priority over the other. 

>   
>3) More recent work, including tracts of PIF, D:PF and P&C are simply 
>   ghastly when it comes to prose style. It must be conceded that it 
>   is never easy to say radically different things, and that readers
>   of genuinely original philosophical work _must_ be willing to put
>   up with some heavy weather now and then. Even so it must also be
>   said that anyone reading the later work and coming away with a
>   clear understanding has either been sleeping, or done a great deal
>   of interpretive work which could have been done by Bhaskar when he
>   was writing the stuff.

I don't know what you are referring to when you use P&C, but I do absolutely
agree with your latter sentiments. However, difficult as some of the later
works are you do seem to suggest that the style is the problem not the
content, and that if the reader is  able to bring enough interpretive
understanding to bear then it might just, possibly, make sense. I honestly
can't say if this is correct because as I suggested in my last posting I
don't really understand Dialectic, I have less trouble with Plato, but the
key to this book, in my opinion, is to read and re-read the chapter on 'why
philosphy matters'. I think in this chapter, and it is certainly a roller
coaster ride through philosophy, the attitudes to reality that he outlines
set the framework for the whole book: the sceptic, the stoic, the unhappy
consciousness etc.
>
>5) The 'satire defence' is interesting. The rules for the competition
>   allowed for "unintentional self-satire" as I recall, and if Bhaskar
>   is satirising anyone else I love to know who they are. I 
>   maintain that the problem is that he is not thinking about the 
>   reader, and has not taken the time needed to work on formulating
>   his ideas. (For those who do have a copy of the text to hand, 
>   take a look at the diagram on page 234, and then try and tell me 
>   Bhaskar is really trying hard to be philosophically precise.)

I absolutely agree, I'm not sure we do disagree. Bhaskar's later work is
almost impenetrable. Still, is it that we should expect RB to be a better
writer, that is write more clearly, or that we should be better readers. In
this respect I think some of my problems with Dialectic stem from an
inadequate understanding of the Hegelian dialectic. I'm trying to remedy
this in the hope that when I return to Dialectic it might make more sense.
But in the meantime can anybody throw some light on the 1M, 2E categories?
Please.

To conclude my position on this. RBs later writings are difficult, at times
sloppy, and almost inaccesible to many. I however, get a form of perverse
pleasure out of trying to decipher what he is trying to say. But I would
never say that I _understand_ all of it.

Thanks,




--------------------------------------------------------

Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA

--------------------------------------------------------