From: "hans despain" <DESPAIN-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:19:56 GMT-700 Subject: BHA: We need to be more careful To repeat myself (and also so we are not in so much agreement) i assert that the way the intransitive and transitive dimensions are being discussed tends to commit a type of categorial error. In brief, the distinction between the two dimensions are a philosophical argument meant to ground, understand, explain and make sense of the activity of science (and its practical applications, along with practical living). More specifically, the ID/TD distinction is a transcendentally established philosophical condition which must be the case for the possbility of scientific activity. In this sense it is to commit a (Kantian) *transcendental illusion* to believe that this philosohical distinction warrants us (prior to actual scientific work) to declare this or that (hypothesized or epistemological) entity as being part of the intransitive dimension. Moreover, even when we have traveled through the process of science, we should remain skeptic about what we actually claim to be intransitive. As a means of an example, allow me to take flight into the misty realm of political economy. As an example there exists in broad agreement within political economy that a socio-economic structure (dubbed) capitalism exists (this is true save the historical relativist tradition, and contemporary post-structualist political economy). However, even when there seems to be broad agreement about the existence of the (social) entity (or structure) there exists great disagreement to what constitutes (as essential properties and characteristics; including its powers, liabilities, and general tendencies as a social structure) capitalism as a socio-economic structure (or as a mode of production). There are at least six significant (real) definations. Next, one still has to confront the historical school tradition (and) now post-structualism with respect to its (the social structure captialism) every existence, or its ontological status. A commitment to critical realism does necessarily commitment us to any particular (real) defination, nor even necessarily to the existence of capitalism. What a commitment to critical realism does do, and particularally a commitment to critical naturalism (and still more specifically a commitment to TMSA) is that we should search for and investigate the existence of social structures (as an intransitive object that must exist for the possiblity of agency). Critical realism has nearly nothing to say about the particular *scientific onotolgy* which we attempt to (re-)construct with are activity as economists (or as scientists in general). And to repeat the scientific ontology cannot be said to have actually ever find intransitivity, at least not in this sense that our knowledge is not fallible, to think otherwise is to commit the ontic fallacy. Further, however, a commitment to critical realism has another very important understanding with respect to its (or Bhaskar's) description of scientific activity (e.g., the transitive process). Namely, the distinction between ID/TD, and more broadly a commitment to "deepth realism" suggests at the very least that we should as scientists attempt to reach the Leibnizian level of science by attempting to construct a "real" defination of our object (e.g. capitalism or the mode of production). This is in contra-distinction to both neo-Kantian (e.g. versions of Keynesianism) and neo- Nietzschean (e.g. post-strucutualist political economy) inspired schools of thought; along with being in contradiction to modes of idealist definations found in traditions committed to neo- Kantian inspired idealism (e.g. Weberian or Tawney's Geist), logical postivism (e.g. Chicago [Freidman]) and empiricism (mainstream neo- Classical, or Schumpeterian methodological commitments). In sum, we should never, prior to the actually activity of the scientific process, nor before a transcendental reflection and dialectical critique of its (i.e. science) metaphysical results (dogmatically) maintain what properly belongs in the transitive and intranstive dimensions. This is the job of science to *attempt* to sort out at the Leibnizian level, but never at the expense of a skeptical attitude of this attempt. In short, intransitivity and transitivity are not boxes to through our dirty landary and subjective biases. hans d. p.s. if it would be helpful, i could be much more specific about the usages of the terms ID/TD which i am taking issue with. But in general i am quite uncomfrontable with how the general discussion has developed. --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005