From: "Andrew Brown" <Andrew-AT-lubs.leeds.ac.uk> 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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005