File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1998/bhaskar.9802, message 27

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 19:10:30 +0100
Subject: BHA: Re: Aristotle and all that

On this issue again , I just wanted to expose some of my crucial findings.
I do not reject Aristotelian philosophy and do I neither regard it supreme
to human destiny.

Let us take an example of spouse in a constrained world;  constrained by
legal , political and economic forces. How could  spouses reward or punish
each other in a constrained world sphere, compared to an unconctrained
world sphere, in order to shape their relationship to each other ?

A cause, in the above regard can be explained as the constraining effects.
Besides, the spouse might be  one of the contributing factor to causes. Now
how do we move out of this * Aristotelian loop * ?

what will be the results of such a relationship and subsequent behaviours
be patterned ? Gary sent a very long article about aesthetics he might be
interested in this loop. Which i think economist call the game theory. Now
how will the rich or the poor turned into occupants of  city bridges, or
old who are too old play this game and win be reward for being onlookers ? 

Knowledge , used all over the world is polluted with such constraints. Now,
if you imagine a child with the freedom of it's parents in love, care and
being a child - the world, the child lives in is a free world, free  of
constraints because there is a free will to reinforce conscious intentions
on both ends, parent and child.

Sociology call that socialisation process. Besides ,can we argue that
because a genetic scientist discovered this gene or that gene, there is a
reinforced conscious intention on the side of the scientist and me the
onlooker ?

Or take an example of what is called the labour market. I think the largest
percentage of workers would say * if  * to mean out of the loop.

Now, if we assume that human nature is shaped by her effects in her
actions, what will the above observation result into ?  I am only critical
of this criteria for its form of dis- empowerment. Most advanced countries
are logged into this  Aristotelian loop. It is the always the same causes
causing the  same causes.
If you ask how an urban planner or failing standards in school could be
redeemed, one might quickly answer , redeem decline in economic
opportunities or low paid teachers etc. I do believe causes  can be
understood effectively in that manner  that what we study,  also
effectively shapes our presence. An indeed the world is shaped on
such studies .


At 11:11 11/02/98 -0600, you wrote:
>It seems to me that Bhaskar's statement regarding "an efficient cause of
>society" has to be understood in terms of the society-language metaphor he
>uses and his insistence on the priority of the social in the
>society-agency relation as well as the "hiatus" between individuals and
>society.  Much of this ground has already been covered in previous posts
>(though I think the point I'm making never quite emerged), so here I'll
>just refer to an early one by Howard that includes the relevant words from


"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce

     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005