Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:57:43 -0400
From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB-AT-CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
Subject: Re: BHA: epistemic fallacy.




>>> Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> 10/06/99 04:11PM >>>
Hiya Charles,

>Charles: I thought Hegel , Engels and Lenin made moves after Kant

Yes, of course.  But in terms of the responding to the move in question --
Kant's reformulation of the materialism/idealism debate via his
reformulation of the rationalism/empiricism debate -- I'm not sure that any
of them do what I take Bhaskar to assume that he himself has done: provide
rigorous philosophical argumentation in defense of a materialist ontology.
I guess I don't really know much about how Lenin approaches the question, so
I could very well be wrong there.  But Engels seems to do more asserting
than arguing, and Hegel is not where I'd look to counter Kant on behalf of
ontological materialism!  It does seem to me that in taking on the epistemic
fallacy Bhaskar is arguing with Kant. I think it's the right place to
intervene, I'm just not sure that all's been said and done yet.    

(((((((((((((((

Charles: I take a number of your points above. In a sense, it strikes me as correct that Engels does a lot of asserting and not arguing. But then when I think further about what we are talking about, it is the issue of what constituties a valid argument about anything, doesn't it ?  We are sort of at the level of very first philosophical principles , so doesn't there have to be some kind of presumption ? This is an initial establishment of what is rigorous or valid argument.

Engels' approach is ( _Ludwig Feuerbach_)

"The great basic question of all philosophy, especially of more recent philosophy, is that conerning the relation of thinking and being...The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into tow great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore , in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other..comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism....But the question of the relation of thinking anbeing has yet another side: in what relation do our thoughts about the world surrounding us stand to the this world itself ? is our thinking capable of cognition of the real world ? Are we able in our ideas and notions of the real world to produce a correct reflection of reality ?...The overwhelming majority of philosophers give an affrimative answer to this question.. In addition, there is yet a set of different philosophers - those who question the possibiltiy of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition of the world. "

Charles: Somehow, the epistemic fallacy seems to be posed in there already  from what I can gather the ef to be.

Elsewhere Engels says "The real unity of the world consists in its materiality and this is proved...by a long and wearisome development of philosophy and natural science. "

Lenin says the materiality of the world consists in it being an objective reality.

and "The motion is the mode of existence of matter "


Charles: I gotta go too. I'll look for some more of these fundamental principle statements.

Just to be sort of explicit, I often have trouble seeing how new fundamentals are actually new, as it often seems to me that my "mentors" had formulated them already. But I am not closed minded to seeing how Bhaskar has something new over the dialectics and materialism of the "boys".

CB

(((((((((((((((


>Not to be picky, but the saying is " the proof of the pudding is in the
>eating". The difference between what you say and I do seems to parallel the
>philosophical issue.


Yes, you're probably right!  But look, (while were at it) even if my mixing
up the saying tells us something about my intellectual proclivities,
re-stating the 2nd thesis as you go on to do doesn't address the problems
associated with adopting a pragmatic theory of truth. 

(((((((((((((((((



 [Also, what Marx is
talking about there when he uses the term "objective truth" is not what I
took you to be talking about when you used the term "truth," which was
something along the lines of "validity."] 


>What are you going to do ? Make Marx a Kantian ? 

I'm not trying to duck out, but I don't really understand what you're asking
here. 


>How does Bhaskar stand on these issues ? Kantian or Marxist ?

I understand Bhaskar to believe that he has successfully refuted Kant, and
that his, Bhaskar's, position is there, implicitly/incipiently in Marx.

Sorry to respond and run, but I gotta go get some work done.




Ruth



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


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