From: "T. Jayaraman" <jayaram-AT-imsc.ernet.in>
Subject: Re: BHA: Transitions
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 12:42:05 +0530 (GMT+05:30)


> One element to an approach that I think could contribute to fostering such
> an atmosphere of productive exchange is to insist on the fact there there is
> no one to one mapping between philosophy and politics. There are
> connections, of course. But I would argue that there can be no definitive
> philosophical resolution of political questions, no unique answer to all the
> questions of the real world contained, in advance, in a philosphical system.
> 
> Howie Chodos
> 
> 

This summing up of course is unexceptionable, as others have noted. But
the problem is Bhaskar himself. In Dialectics, for instance, there is
not only market socialism, but a summarised philosphical position on the
problems of socialism in the USSR and what was wrong with it. These
remarks are far too sweeping, and without any analysis. Why should I buy
the position that the attempt to build socialism in one country is
"voluntaristic"? What transcendental philosophical justification can be
provided for this statement without the examination of a concrete
historical and political situation? 

There are similar problems with other remarks that are tossed off
without analysis even in the natural sciences (where in general I find
Bhaskar extremely acceptable) e.g. the footnote on cosmology in
Dialectics ; or the passing remark on metacritiques of scientific
theories and a convergence with the Edinburgh school's work. 

The problem here is similar to the one that Hobsbawm noted with regard
to Althusser (in an essay in The Revolutionaries). While the overall
philosophical critique is of considerable value, concrete progress needs
to be made with regard to specific questions without which not much is
achieved, and Hobsbawm points to the relative poverty of Althusser's work
in this regard. 

To put the problem somewhat differently. While philosophy underlabours
for the sciences, there must be some manner of formulating how
philosophy itself is informed and the manner of its posing its problems
shaped by concrete advances in the sciences. Bhaskar's critiques
of various strands of Marxist philosophy are illuminating. But
I find very little acknowledgement of the "implicit" philosophy 
(if one may call it that) that is there in the vast body of Marxist
studies in history, political economy, etc. Nor any serious
evaluation of these philosphical positions. This neglect is part of the
reason why, I think, Bhaskar is so tremendously convincing in his
general philosophical position, but his applications to some real issues
so unsatisfying. 

Jayaraman. 
 

-- 
======================================================================T. Jayaraman,
Institute of Mathematical Sciences,
C. I. T. Campus,
Madras - 600 113.
India.
Tel: 91-44-235 1856 (Off.)
     91-44-4910580 (Res.)
e-mail:jayaram-AT-imsc.ernet.in
http://www.imsc.ernet.in/~jayaram

========================================================================

     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---