Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:30:41 -0700 (MST) From: hans despain <HANS.DESPAIN-AT-m.cc.utah.edu> Subject: Re: BHA: Re: WHITHER CRITICAL REALISM? In agreement with Tobin, many of the commitments of critical realism are implicit in everyday living. And of course, implicit, and sometimes even explicit in Marx and Marxian philosophy, along with more modern varieties of philosophy of science. Hence, there is a dialectical moment in CR to make explicit, or more clear what the world, or social structure *must* be like to make sense of our experiences. But, i am not sure that this is altogether intuitive, even for a reasonablly bright 40-something year-old. i mean we always face an (Hegelian) inverted world, (Feuerbachian and Freudian) false consciousness (Nietzschean) power relations, (Marxian) ideology, along with wishful thinking, repressions, and structual limitations on how we come to understand the world and (especially) society. Whereby, it takes much more then intuition to begin to grasp critical realist commitments. It takes a great amount of work and effort to reach such an understanding; which can certainly be understood be a *great* part of Bhaskar's and Critical Realist's contributions. What was lacking in my last post was an adequate critique of the direction Marxian thinking has taken since (at least) 1883. An important moment of CR is its attempt to save the humanistic aims and the enlightment hopes of Marxism, which had been eclipsed by many versions of diamat and strict structualism and of course the fetish-like behavior required from all us to survive within capitalist (especially post-modern) relations. There seems to me to be a CR's attempt to reclaim potentialities, possibilites, hopes, wishes, and faith, which can be called "big ambitions". This has become more and more clear to be an aim of Bhaskar himself since SHRE. i mean (further) "emancipation" is certainly no small aim. If these are not direct implication of DCR, then they are certainly possibilites which Bhaskar attempts to exploit. It is in this sense that i understood Ralph, while the more (opportunistically) academic possiblities inspired his questions; as to what are the reasons one would claim to be [D]CR. With this i turn the attention a bit ... i would be willing to defend the idea that CR has the potential to be more revolutionary then does Marxism (given the time, place in history and type of consciousness we confront). This is not because Marx(ism) is or was wrong, but rather the (material) conditions have changed, whereby, the point of attack must also change. There is little hope in the emergence of a workers consciousness to led to revolutionary work (they all voted for Republician); the self-estrangement runs too deep. Today it is most urgent to explain the skepectism, self-doubt, depression, and general hopelessness which is so strong in these post-modern days. Marxism itself must become much more successful in reinterpreting and reapplying Marx to our contemporary problems. And of course there is much of Marx which is directly applicable still today. i take this to be a pivotal moment in critical realism, analytical Marxism, neo-Kantian Marxists (i.e., Habermasians) and post-structualism (i.e., neo-Nietzscheans) alike. Again these are "big ambitions", and the specifics tend to be in opposition, whereby, we must choose how we believe Marxian (and enlightment) "hopes" can proceed and progress. hans d. p.s. although the foundations and aims are quite similar, like Doug, i believe CR and Marxism to be quite distinct (especially specific versions). --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005