Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:26:18 +0100
From: Colin Wight <Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Bhaskar, Social Scince and absence


Hi Ruth,

Since I didn't disagree violently much that you said (not all of it mind,
but you'd hardly expect that anyway) I wasn't going to reply. Then I was
reading Alison Assiter and something she said about truth stirred me and
that started me thinking about some of the things you said. First about
truth. She is talking about Koethe here (who I have not read myself) and
Bhaskar. She argues:

'The concept of truth becomes transcendent of anyone's knowledge: the
truth, or falsity, of any sentence may be independent of the conditions for
its verification. The world and a true description of it may be different
from the best possible verified theory. A sentence, indeed, may be
understood, although there can be no possible recognition of the
circumstances which would fulfil its truth conditions.' (Enlightened Women,
Alison Assiter, p. 54)

Anyway, just thought I would share that with you.

>> 
>>I just wanted to emphasize that I said that God is `real', from this
>>perspective, not God `exists'.  

This is my conceptual clarity high horse. Does the distinction between real
and exists rest on the fact that one refers to real existence whereas the
other to the fact that a set of discourses and practices exist. When you
say God is real (no scare quotes from me), do you mean that there are sets
of social relations, discourses and practices surrounding God (a mythical
referent, to me at least)? Or what? What is real?

>>
>>[Your dehydration case would seem to be of the type (a), with "not being
>>present" standing in the place of "not existing."  Yes?  I need to think
>>about this more, but it really seems like so many re-descriptions to me.  I
>>mean, doesn't dehydration just *mean* the absence of water?  

No surely not. Dehydration is caused by a lack of water. I don't know much
about biology either but it seems to me dehydration describes more than a
mere lack of water. Is this computer dehydrated? It is certainly lacking in
water.

And if you die
>>as a result of not having water, isn't there something that actually happens
>>in your cells?  

Of course, as a result of....caused by.... (
) note the absence here, has that got you thinking?

Why isn't "The lack of water causes death" just another way
>>of saying "We need water to live" 

No problem with this and if you get water you live, if you don't you die.
The presence of water is (one of the) a cause of you being alive, just as
the absence of water can be (one of the) a cause of your death.

BTW, just let me reiterate, although I do accept that absences can be
causal and that by extending our ontology to include both presences and
absences as real I think we gain something, I too get wary when RB tries to
extend the notion too far.



>>
>>Well, *I'M* (clearly) not a biochemist (or a brilliant philosopher for that
>>matter), 

Me neither (to both of these) 

On RB's account of social science BTW, have you had a chance to look at PON
yet? It really does address all of the issues you have problems with. I am
not saying he solves them to your satisfaction (or even mine), but they are
comprehensivley addressed here and without reading through this book I
wouldn't think anyone could have  clear grasp of RBs account of the social
world. 

Also, Bhaskar doesn't so much as critique hermeneutics as more correctly
locate it (in my opinion). That is he stops it overstretching itself. But
for RB much of what hermeneutics says is accepted, he just goes beyond it.
A hermeneutic starting point for the social sciences is crucial to CR.
Critical realism, it seems to me, allows the navigation of both
constructivism and realism is the social sciences, and that's its real
strength. For a good simple intro to this, which basically argues the CR
case, have a look at Gerard Delanty's book, 'Social Science: Beyond
Constructivism and Realism (OU Press, 1997)

But that said there really is no substitute to reading PON.

Best of luck.


>>
>>Anyway, I'm sorry to have so little to offer, other than vague grumblings,
>>but stay tooned for said forthcoming earth-shattering dissertation, due in
>>2000! 

No need to apologise, I've probably got a lot less to offer, but suffer
from an inablity to keep quiet. And looking forward to 2000. Still, before
then the world cup starts hence you all may find you get some peace.

Thanks,



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

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


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