Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:35:57 +0100 (BST)
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Bhaskar on Adorno 


The passages at the end of this email come from a recent email from Colin
Wight to Michael Salter on the Bhaskarlist.  

In the debate that has been taking place, I am on Colin's rather than
Michael's side.  It seems to me that Colin is right to point to the
fundamental difference between Bhaskar and Heidegger on the basis of his
ontological realism (passage A), but my main feeling is that the discussion
would be much more solidly based if it were related to a thorough reading of
Dialectic.  I feel the Adorno/ Bhaskar debate would make a lot more sense if
we had had the opportunity to debate Bhaskar fully first, and then to
compare him to Adorno.

That brings me to passage B.  As I have already said, I agree with Colin
that it is Bhaskar's critical realism that underpins his account of
dialectic and separates him from Heidegger and, I would guess, Adorno.  So
the pre-dialectical work remains crucial and has to be carried over into
Dialectic.  For myself, I find the 1993 work much more exciting now,
however, and I would be very interested in a section by section discussion,
if that is of interest to anyone else.  

Would it be possible to start a reading group on Dialectic?  How would it
happen?

Alan Norrie

A

>>Where precisely does RB reject Husserlian/Heideggerian "metaphysics" as
>> you put it? 
>
>It is embedded in his depth realism. If RB's commitment to such a form of 
>realism isn't a rejection of a phemological metaphysics I don't know what 
>would be. Also, have a look at Plato etc, especially where he critiques
>Heidegger for claiming being is always mediated by Dasein.
>

B
>
>But I haven't suggested otherwise. The crucial point is what changes does
>this entail in critical realism. After all, RB does still call it
>Dialectical _Critical Realism_. So now we need a substantive discussion with
>textual references as to where they differ. Also, I a little uneasy at the 
>implication that only those of us who have read and understood Dialectic are
>up to speed with RB. What about the folks who are only beginning on the journey
>and getting to grips with RTS. is it being suggested that they shouldn't
>bother because this is no longer RB's position?
>
Alan Norrie



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