Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:43:53 -0500 (CDT)
From: viren viven murthy <vvmurthy-AT-midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: RE: BHA: RE: at the dead sea scroll


Hi Collin, Mervyn et al.

I am trying to keep an open mind with respect to Bhaskar's new found
religiousity and I think that it may be best to link Bhaskar's discussions
of divinity with his previous treatment of ethics.  While CR is strongest
when dealing with epistemology and ontology, ethics has been a bit of a
problem for Bhaskar.  But this problem cannot be slighted since Bhaskar
himself argues against the fact/value distinction, especially in his
discussion of ideology.  Hence he has been in need of a naturalist ethics
that was capable of deriving ought from is.  That is, if knowledge is
intimately linked to values, knowledge depends not only on the
existential intrasitivity of the material world, but also on the
objectivity of moral values. 
	In Dialectic, Bhaskar tries to build on the ethical theories of
Habermas and Gewirth, arguing that their was a conatus to dialectical
universalizability(289).  So on this argument, Bhaskar stresses the
similarity between  agents rather than their particularity. Bhaskar is
again going beneath appearances, but at this point his argument depends on
a certain view of rationality, rather than on a deeper self.
	Perhaps a point of entry to his discussion of the real self in
FEW, would be his discussion of real interests in Bhaskar's earlier works.
These interests, like the real self, lie behind the world of appearances.
I thinks that his discussion in FEW deals with a higher level of
particularity. From Bhaskar's perspective, I can tell a person what his or
her real needs are based on a theory of human nature, but I cannot
actually tell them what to do, since dialectical universalizabilty and
human nature underdetermine circumstance.  They at best set the parameters
for ethical action.  There is still room for ethical judgement by the
individual. Perhaps, we can interpret dharma as a combination human
nature, dialectical universalizability and individual judgement.
This would make Bhaskar a somewhat Aristotelian-Kantian Hindu, but I
hope he will not mind.

Best,

Viren
 On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Colin Wight wrote:

> Hi Viren,
> 
> It is exactly how he would respond, but it rests on the same problem; that
> is, it posits some deeper essential self below the appearances, a self more
> importantly devoid of social determination. But (i) how is such a self
> possible?; and (ii) how do you know when you reach your self? The good
> capitalist can do his meditation (and presumably take the bonuses that come
> along when one does meditate p. 141) and return to his money-grabbing safe
> in the knowledge that he/she has grasped the real content of their own
> dharma. Bhaskar's or any other's attempt to then tell them that they have
> yet to discover their real dharma would then constitute a violation of his
> own claim that for "A to say to B is not necessarily any more the right
> thing  for C to say to B than it is generally right that A and B and C
> should all do the same thing in the circumstances. Each person's dharma is
> unique.".
> 
> keep off my parade says A, my dharma's unique, how could you know my dharma?
> 
> This very liberal and asocial view of the self will get us nowhere. It is
> not the self that should form the cornerstone of an ethical theory but our
> humanity (accepting, of course, that this humanity develops differently in
> different times and places).
> 
> I'm much happier saying to both A (the capitalist) and B (the fascist);
> "well it may well be that your dharma propels you to behave in that way, and
> in an unconnected world we would all like to follow our dharma, but we live
> in an interconnected world, not a world of individual selves, but social
> selves, and your spontaneous right action, whilst certainly in accord with
> your dharma (as you perceive of it) is having a bad effect on C. Stop."
> 
> This was exactly my point at the discussion which is featured in Alethia. If
> we all run around fulfilling our dharma there are inevitably going to be
> winners and losers. This idea of freedom as each fulfilling their own
> destiny (dharma) devoid of consideration for others is a "shipwreck of a
> theory".
> 
> On Spinoza, it is indeed interesting that you raise him. The very first post
> on FEW was my provocative comment about RB's potential conversion to
> pantheism!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> =================================> Dr. Colin Wight
> Department of International Politics
> University of Wales, Aberystwyth
> Tel: 01970 621769
> http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cow
> ==================================> >
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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