File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2000/bhaskar.0006, message 134


Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 22:38:04 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Warming up was Re: BHA: movement building


Dear Gary,

You wrote:
>I continue to be interested in Bhaskar as a thinker.  He is in fact one of 
>the great philosophers of modern times.  Those who would like to challenge 
>that claim would do well to read more philosophy.

Nobody is challenging that claim, least of all me. Even great
philosophers, however, don't go on forever (though their philosophy
might); some come to dead ends, others get derailed, etc. A number of us
think the latest book is very poor and rather problematic for many
critical realists, especially those who are doing social science at the
coal face. None of us *wants* to believe this. I, like Colin, have read
the book many times, each time hoping to persuade myself that my earlier
reaction was mistaken - in vain.

So Gary, please, before you conclude the book is great, wait until you
get a copy of the it, and don't engage in any more talk of flame wars.

And please don't imply, by pulling friendship with Roy, that those of us
who are strongly criticising EW are no friends of his. I think I have
been a friend to Roy and am being so now. I obviously think no friend
would knowingly support him in the course he is currently embarked upon,
notwithstanding they might think it has very probably helped him through
a period of deep personal crisis and pain. As ever though, I could be
mistaken.

Luv, 

Mervyn

Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> writes
>I have to dash off and I will not be back at my computer until Monday.  But 
>I think Ruth and Heikki  and Eric are actually bordering on the offensive 
>with some of their remarks.  I will return to this point, but please 
>throwing snide remarks about gurus about is just a way to provoke a flame 
>war and we have not had one of these on this list since the days of Ralph 
>Dumain.
>
>I continue to be interested in Bhaskar as a thinker.  He is in fact one of 
>the great philosophers of modern times.  Those who would like to challenge 
>that claim would do well to read more philosophy.
>
>None of that translates to hero worship.  Though I for one am clear about 
>my intellectual debt to Bhaskar and I have met him and I consider him a 
>friend.  He is in fact a very charming decent human being who is a hell of 
>a lot of fun to be around.
>
>My next post will take up the necessity of a movement and the two lists 
>approach.
>
>regards
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>
>At 09:17  9/06/00 +0100, you wrote:
>>I am in total agreement with Ruth. Perhaps we should
>>have two lists now: one for the followers of the guru,
>>another one for those who are interested in the issues
>>related to critical social realism and emancipatory
>>methodologies?
>>
>>The first one could be called the Bhaskar-list, the
>>second one 'critical realism'. In any case, the idea that
>>there should be a discussion list on the ideas of somebody
>>who is among us but beyond taking part in the discussions
>>is epistemologically and sociologically suspicious and
>>certainly undemocratic.
>>
>>Terveisin,
>>
>>                 Heikki
>>
>>
>>PS. 'Terveisin' is not derived from any Eastern language.
>>It is just a word in one of the many minority languages
>>of Europe. I do speak that language.
>>
>>
>>
>>At 01:02 PM 6/8/00 -0400, Ruth Groff wrote:
>> >Hi everybody,
>> >
>> >No sniggering, I promise!  This whole exchange about the new book is
>> >fascinating.  Has anybody in the US or Canada been able to get ahold of the
>> >thing yet?
>> >
>> >I'm interested in the discussion that we've been having because I've *never*
>> >liked the idea of some guy's (arguably insightful) philosophy of science
>> >being worked up into a "movement."  Maybe it's just that I am not yet
>> >permanently situated in academia, and therefore do not understand the need
>> >for such a thing (or maybe it's just that I have never been a member of a
>> >real political party), but it has always rubbed me the wrong way.
>> >
>> >I'm actually kind of glad, though, that the yearning-for-location part of
>> >the interest in Bhaskar has become explicit.  Okay, so now it's an overtly
>> >religious movement - with, as I understand it, a real live leader - rather
>> >than a secular movement on behalf of the dialectics of absence or whatever.
>> >But at least the underlying dynamic is now clear.
>> >
>> >Paradoxically, though, this may open up some additional space for those of
>> >us who don't have any special attachment to Bhaskar, and who just want to
>> >think through his contribution to certain debates within philosophy.  [Which
>> >is NOT to say that one's spiritual (if one has them) and political (if one
>> >has them) commitments do not figure into one's philosophical concerns - only
>> >that, for some, Bhaskar's work may not be directly relevant in this regard.]
>> >
>> >Colin wrote:
>> >However, how does this all square with the claim to
>> >>"show how the dialectic of critical realism at once prepares the ground for
>> >>and necessitates its development into the transcendental dialectical
>> >>critical realism" (p.21). And there are other similar claims. The
>> >>"necessitates" seems very "iron law-like".
>> >
>> >I wouldn't take that too seriously.  Bhaskar always says his ideas are
>> >necessary!  Mostly it just means "Here's a way of looking at such and such
>> >that is persuasive."
>> >
>> >Ruth
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005