File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2001/bhaskar.0101, message 73


Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:39:56 -0000
Subject: Re: BHA: reply to Andy


Ruth,

I've done a bit of debating on this list on such stuff, which was 
extremely very helpful to me, but it's tough going. Instead, I'm 
currently rewriting something along these lines and will send it to 
you when finished (will send you the old stuff now).

One thing: basically, only people who are already thinking along 
similar lines have been receptive to my expression of the view that 
the non-identity of thought and object is a problem of the 
magnitude that you imply in your earlier post. Probably down to my 
inability to express the point (or me being plain wrong). Marxist-
Hegelians, critical realists and dialectical critical realists often think 
I'm making a fuss over nothing.

Many thanks,

Andy

On 27 Jan 2001, at 9:20, Ruth Groff wrote:

> hi Andy,
> 
> You wrote:
> >Well, I'm bothered! Bothered enough to reject the nonsense of a  
> >'non-isomorphism' of thought and object in favour of an 
> >interpretation of Spinoza. But very few other people are bothered 
> >(whether critical realists or not). 
> 
> Elaborate!
> 
> Please!
> 
> Ruth 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005