Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:37:17 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Re: jargon and introductions


Hi Tobin, Michael

The difficulty with Tobin's view for some of us who are also non-
philosophers is that we prefer and admire Bhaskar's writing the way it
is (apart from some confusing typos and things of that ilk), not broken
up into bite-sized bits etc for "the average PhD" (which is not what I
at any rate meant by editing) - and the same would go for Kant, Hegel,
Heidegger etc. A philosopher operating at a high level by definition
writes in the first instance for other philosophers, and uses their
language, just as, in Michael's example, a biochemist writes for
biochemists. That has not stopped Kant etc (who also had
political/social programmes) being read by non-philosophers and being
hugely influential. The work of 'introduction', interpretation,etc is
soon put in train. Had DPF been written according to Tobin's
prescriptions it would have been a very *different book*, and arguably
*not nearly so effective*. Would Michael, for starters, have had his
heady experience? The aesthetic moment in significant philosophy, it
seems to me, is irreducible. But Tobin's probably right that we should
talk about something else, for whatever we say, Bhaskar will very
probably go on being (mercifully) Bhaskar!
-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk


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