Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:37:09 +0100
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Science, theology and witchcraft


Jeez,

Do we have something approaching a  real "disagreement" on this list?

I have to say that Michael's comment:

>The alternative of theological reverence for any
>particular author and glib dismissal of other on the basis of cavalier
>misreadings is an amusing exemplification only of the problem.

Is amusingly off-beam (from my particular vantage point).

For one thing, RB's reply to Adorno (as Michael puts it):

>RB retorts that subjectivity must "in some sense" be seen as
>"grounded" or "overreached" by objectivity. 

To see this as advocating reductionism seems to me to be a classic case of
misreading, and cavalier at that. I mean given RB's synchronic emergent
materialism reductionism is blocked. Besides, reductionist or not, what is
incorrect with this slight reformulation of Adorno's position? After all,
RB's non-transgressible limit is to truth not the dialectic. If this
rearticulation of Adorno's position is incorrect then we need arguments why,
not claims that it doesn't meet with the writers view of what is, and what
is not, dialectical (which, of course are always subject to challenge).

Also to extrapolate from RBs claim that Heidegger is one of the greatest
20th century philosophers to say that said person is influential upon RB is
really overstretching the point. The current Manchester United football team
is undoubtely one of the greatest this century, but that hardly means I
support them! (a die-hard Newcastle United fan I am afraid) RB makes a
similar claim about Wittgenstein, but I doubt many would say old Ludwig was
influential in shaping RB's approach to philosophy, it's simply one of those
phrases he likes and it stands as a mark of recognition of Heidegger. To
then go on to claim that RB was influenced by Heidegger one would have to do
lot more work. I mean compare how critical RB is about Heidegger to how
complementary he is about Adorno.

And on this respect it seems to me that RB is much closer to Adorno than
Heidegger and his critiques of Adorno seem really minor. And after all, such
critiques are surely necessary, since we wouldn't want RB to display
"theological reverence" toward Adorno would we?

Thanks,




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

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

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



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