From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net>
Subject: Re: BHA: Neglect of Bhaskar (Marx?)
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 11:24:23 -0400


Colin wrote:

>         Dave
> Spurret (an early list member) once suggested to me that RTS is a
> non-negotiable starting point for understanding CR. I agree.

Hm, I've always felt that *The Possibility of Naturalism* was self-standing
and an equally good starting point -- better in fact for those in the social
sciences -- though I would recommend anyone who read it to then go to RTS.
(Although at this point one might also start with Archer I suppose.)  But
PON isn't too likely to grab attention with its reference to naturalism: who
finds the *philosophical* meaning of this term obvious?  I almost didn't
read it because I only knew the meaning of the term within aesthetics, where
it is closely allied with positivism.  Luckily I held my nose long enough to
discover he meant something else entirely.  (It still makes me shudder
however.)

So, as in other ways, it seems to me that sometimes Bhaskar's sense of
strategy isn't as sharp as one could wish.  That's scarcely an
unconscionable felony for a philosopher, but it does make for difficulties.
Other than that Colin pretty well captures many of the problems facing CR.
On the other hand I think I'm a bit more concerned about the situation than
Colin is, perhaps because from my viewpoint much of the activity going under
the banner of postmodernism seems mainly aimed at academic political
jockeying.  While a number of scholars are unhappy with postmodernism's
reign, few know of a tenable alternative, and fewer still are willing to
make the jump, given PoMo *does* make some valid critiques of positivistic
approaches, and that normally scholars do have to "play the game" to succeed
in academia.  Little of this helps any sort of emancipatory project.

Cheers, T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-mail.com
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce




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