Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 01:37:10 +0000 From: Colin Wight <Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk> Subject: RE: BHA: Re: More on TD/ID Hi Ruth, Exotic it was let me tell you. Rembrandt, a dash of Carmen by the Romanian State Opera Company, Van Gogh, Arnulf Rainer (what a prat - apologies to any fans) etc....All Bourgeiose stuff!!! Hey it's the inequties of money, what can I say? Anyway.... >I think that we have exhausted the limits of e-mail here, because I can't >imagine any good reason why you would think that I think the exact opposite >of my stated position. It's gotta be a medium problem. Probably, but I took you to be accepting my distate with the "intransitive = objects of study" account then reintroducing it. I am sure i can find the actual section, because if I am right it will be intransitive to both of us by now - time, what a problem. > >>> If not, and there are real objects out there but they are not what >>> scientists study, then what would differentiate transcendental >>> realism from > transcendent realism, to use RB's old terms? >> >>No you have misunderstood. The fact that an intransitive object can exist >>and not yet be an object of study does not mean that it can never be known. > >Same as above. We weren't talking about as-yet unknown objects; we were >talking about objects-in-thought versus real objects (or whether such a >distinction is intelligible). No, that's just it, I was talking about intransitive objects which are not reducible to objects of study. maybe I'm confused, senile even???? I said that the position that "There are real >objects, but they are in principle unknowable because the only thing that we >can know are objects-as-we-perceive/conceive-them" is, as I read him, at >odds with RB's transcendental, as opposed to transcendent, realism. Yes you did, but you then went on (I can find the evidence your honour!!!) to suggest that by framing intransitive objects as other than the objects of study (do you accept this now?) then Rb was skating close to transcendeant realism, hence Mervyn's intervention. > >Two things. One, don't forget that you're quoting me there, not poor Andy. I thought this was clear. >Two, I guess that the question is what is meant by "We only know the world >through our descriptions of it." RB seems to dislike the Kantian version of >this position, as well as, I betchya, the version of Putnam and ilk. Absolutement, my dear... All >I'm saying, Colin, is that this right here is the tough, core question that >specifically *metaphysical* realists have to deal with. And all I am saying is that not all question have nice neatly packed answers. RBs answer to this question is fallibilistic; live with your doubt. You may not be happy with this answer, but then when I teach my students epistemology, I draw the distinction between someone asking me in a pub (not that i frequent them too often, you understand) "who is that over there", I reply that it "x". Do I know that is "x"? Yes!, How? Because.....(insert any epistemological position you wish: i.e. I was present at his/her birth (empiricism); becuause he/she is the sister/brother of Y, who is the sister brother of T (a form of rationalism) etc... And contrast this with a group of philosophers in a car sat at traffic lights. All of the philosophers are dead, because they could not reach agreement on what the colo(u)r red was, hence the car never moved. Epistemologists might want to answer your question Ruth, and it is a jolly interesting one, but RB says no general, philosophical, or transhistorical answer will be forthcoming. But hey, that's all right, live in the shadow of your uncertainty and fallibility, it's quite fun once you get used to it (I am, as you are probably coming to realise a latent postmodernist on matters epistemological - oh well, we can't all be perfect!) Cheers, ============================================ Dr. Colin Wight Department of International Politics University of Wales, Aberystwyth Wales SY23 3DA Tel: (01970) 621769 --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005