File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1998/bhaskar.9802, message 38


Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:10:53 +0100
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Aristotle and all that



Hi Howard and Colin

I hope we have reached a self-equilibrating moment. Besides, I will come to
this later in my rejection of equilibrium points in society today. In my
earlier posting, I asserted that I did either reject Aristotle's account or
approved it. What I meant, was simply to show that there's given amount of
logical fallacy in the Aristotle's criteria.

One reason, which I want to bring to your attention, is the * biologicality
* of this account. I reject biologicality as I reject the * Aristotelian
loop *. Societies are stable, the above assumption implies that society is
not stable. Besides, there is no society to talk about but group of
individuals.

Biologicality in Aristotelian account, assumes that when A =E0  B , just as
if there is a * natural selection * of human events, actions etc. This
seems to be overdeterministic. Is it right then to believe in the above
views, assuming society is an efficient cuase to it's activities ? This
might disaccount the materiality of society besides, this is the 21 st
centrury.
A can't cuase B unless the condition in which A and B are found and
functions are approved of the A cuasing B within that structure!  I will
elaborate on this later. Howard does also  show the same problem here below.

I have also found Howard's word encouraging but I do not see his views as
self-equilibrating. In essence, we are dealing with a society( ? ), which
is no longer based, on distance and time constraints.

What is the problem ?
Is adaptation possible to allow for A to cause B?

The answer is an absolute NO, for with time and space, becoming so limited
that implies adaptation to social norms (A) to cause social norms (B) is
impossible since human nature requires time to adapt to given situations.
Where is the time ? To those who are concerned with culture, might be
interested to know, why I argue that there is no culture to talk about at
the present moment in the our time. That means to me, A cannot cause B. In
that regard there is not self - equilibrating point, in the Edgeworth box
at all. Hans was interested in a given theory/ ies, which I did also reject
on this very account. And I will remind him that individuals in a society
can only defend or cause something to happen due to what is basically
problematic to there own situation or contradictory to the present
situation they are living or are found to be living into.

Let me exemplify these facts ;-

a). In my last posting, I gave an example of spouses and the resulting
behaviours, on account that what really cause this behaviour, might or
might not conform to Aristotle's account, only on an assumption that
everything remains the same, in order for the spouses to reproduce a said
behaviour.

b). The spouses having been able to go through  point ( a ), they do either
like their daughter and son to go through or not to go through the said
relationship in  a. They therefore want (try ) to disable the events and
causes, which might generate such conditions.

 A question might arise, why then does society ( ? )continue in the same
mess ?


Logical fallacy and Aristotelian illusion;

As of situation (b),  the spouse resolve to find the lasting solution to
situation A which causes  B . What they do not understand though, is the
fact that in order for A to cuase B , A and B must be logged into a given
sub- structure functioning within a structure. For example a family
relationship or voilent children or unemployed or stressed workers, in a
communistic or capitalistic social structure.

As of the above, the solution will be minus A to cuase minus B in order to
reslove the existing problems. This is what I said, I will come to later
above, in non- existance of self- equlibrating, point in society which I
see as a logical fallacy . On assumption that;-

1. Time limit does not alow socialisation or adaptation
2.  Space limit ,,            ---           ,,                -------

I therefore, come to a conculsion that Aristotelian criteria does generate
the very conditions which many critical realist, seems to be struggling
with. Should we continue studing society using this critera ?

Realistic logical fallacy can be said to manifest itself as such ;
When I move two step forward and then take two steps backwards then I have
not moved at all.
Diagrammatically A ----> B and as such -A ----> - B, actually means  that
nothing has happened at all.

Every one of you, will approve to the fact that we have forms of central
planning in every advanced society. That is a realism .  I mentioned the
Old aged and children voilance why could these forms of social errors do
not create a self- equilbrating situations as such erase themseleves ? 






___________________________

At 03:24 1998-02-13 -0800, you wrote:

Now I don't think Aristotle ever said everything had to have a final cause,
but he did say nature was full of final causes, so that is a place where we
have to take our distance on him.  The phenomena of much of nature are the
product of an intersection of causes and the events generated are not
purposed.

When the microeconomist shows how the mathematical conditions for general
equilibrium can be derived from the preference functions of individuals or
all gains from trade can be exhausted in the Edgeworth box diagram, in
these instances everything is reduced to the choices of individuals.  The
social outcome is completely derivative.  There is no aspect of the social
not reducible to such choices or preferences.  But on Bhaskar's analysis, a
society is a
structure only present in, but not reducible to, its effects.


So we can speak, for example, of social rules like theft reproducing
themselves in a society based on private property without reducing them to
the intentions or preferences of individuals.


Howard

     "What is there just now you lack"  Hakuin

At 10:46 1998-02-13 +0000, you wrote:


 Anyway the descriptivists always end up sneaking causality in >anyway via
the back door. A social science that does deal with the "why" as >well as
the "how", would be, as Wittgenstein might put it, 'mere idling'; now isn't
that ironic.
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Dr. Colin Wight

bwanika


______________________________






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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005