Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:06:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca>
Subject: BHA: reply to tobin


hiya Tobin,

I guess the question is whether "intransitive objects of science" are, by
definition, "objects-in-knowledge" -- or "thought-objects," as I've been
calling them -- or whether they just are "real objects."  I have obviously
been coming down in favor of the latter, but this last time you made an
interesting case.  
What I keep coming back to, though, is Bhaskar's claim that we know the real
things.  This, as I suggested in my post to Colin, is at the heart of the
distinction between transcendent and transcendental realism I think.

Hah!  You see?!  It's not so easy to defend this realism stuff after all, is
it? Now you guys see why I'm always hammering away on whether Bhaskar has
really managed to get us beyond our own subjectivity.

r.     



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