File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1998/bhaskar.9802, message 25


Subject: Re: BHA: cause and meaning
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 09:04:31 +0000


Hi Howard,

Yes point taken. But, and it is sometime since I read the chapter in any
depth, isn't the very distinction between a reason as a cause, and the
embodied being which acts as a result of that reason (cause), exactly what
RB does establish. What i mean here is that the reason causes the mental
state and the being with the mental state acts. So the reason is never the
sole cause of the act in which it is implicated, but that doesn't mean that
it is not one of the causes. Also as I read the chapter RB doesn't just
argue that reasons are real in virtue of their causal power. This can't be
his aim since their causal power is exactly what is in question. Winch, for
example, denies that reasons can be causes, but doesn't deny that reasons
are real (he can't otherwise he really would lapse into solipism).

Thanks, for the congrats. I still feel a little uneasy (pretentious) using
it, but what the hell I got the official letter from the University through
the other day and if it's good enough for them....


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

Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Tel: (01970) 621769

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



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005