Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:09:57 -0500 (EST) From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> Subject: BHA: another go at the DPF intro Hiya Gary, Here it is again. Better luck this time! Ruth >Return-Path: <owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> >X-Authentication-Warning: lists.village.Virginia.EDU: domo set sender to owner-bhaskar-AT-localhost using -f >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:41:44 -0500 (EST) >X-Sender: rgroff-AT-postoffice.yorku.ca >To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> >Subject: BHA: another go at the DPF intro >Sender: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Reply-To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > >Hi guys, > >Thanks Andrew, Gary and others for getting going on DPF. After your post, >Gary, I re-read the Introduction too. Sorry for the length of this post. I >hope at any rate that it is clear. (Also, I tried to format the paragraphs >in a way that would be helpful, but I don't know if that will be retained in >the delivery process.) > >Here's my stab at it: > >The Intro is a combination of big-picture stuff (objectives, the outlines of >analytic frameworks, definitions, etc.) and a more detailed discussion of >Hegel. Let's start with the objectives. > >I. > >Bhaskar sets out the purpose of the book in a couple of different ways. > >The first way that he does it is that he tells us right off the bat that >he's got three aims: 1) to integrate dialectical categories into critical >realism, 2) to formulate a general (non-Hegelian) theory of dialectical >processes and 3) to set out the parameters of a "totalizing critique of >Western philosophy" - one which will shed light on the current "crisis of >socialism." > >The second way that he does it is that he tells us that Parmenides >introduced into Western philosohy two major metaphysical errors: the >epistemic fallacy and ontological monovalence ("a purely positive...notion >of reality"). Bhaskar notes that he has dealt with the first of the errors >in his earlier works. Having already addressed the problem of the epistemic >fallacy (and the actualism to which it is linked), he is now going to turn >to the problem of ontological monovalence. To put it differently, having >revindicated *ontology* in RTS, he is now going to revindicate *negativity*. > >On to frameworks and definitions. > >II. > >A. "Dialectic" >Bhaskar tells us that a dialectic is a certain kind of process. Dialectical >processes have the dynamic, or logic, that they do in virtue of (a) their >structure and (b) the norms of truth and freedom - which, according to >Bhaskar, dialectical processes incorporate. Bhaskar doesn't pursue (b) in >the Introduction, but with respect to (a), the structure of dialectical >processes, we are told that a dialectical process is one that involves >oppositions and interconnections which lead to a transformation of some >sort. The substantive components of a dialectical process can be >conceptual, social or natural. [Bhaskar of course has names for each of >these possibilities, as well as for different combinations thereof, e.g., >"ontological dialectics," "epistemological dialectics," "relational >dialectics."] > > >B. "Negativity," or "negation." >Bhaskar starts off with three different classes of negation. Each of the >second two is a sub-set of the one that precedes it. The three categories >are: real negation, transformative negation and radical negation. "Real" >negation designates absence. "Transformative" negation designates ... well, >"transformation," Bhaskar says; change. "Radical" negation designates >self-transformation. Again, each of the second two is a sub-set of the >previous category. > >There are a few things to note here: one, Bhaskar tells us that the >dialectical *social* process modelled in the TMSA is an example of >transformative negation - so this is a point of entry for dialectical theory >into cr; two, Bhaskar says that central to the success of his revindication >of negativity is the idea that "absence" (and/or "absences" -- he is unclear >about the distinction between universal and particular) is a proper referent >- this of course is a major point that he will need to argue for later, and >not just assert; three, for those who know their continental philosophy, >Bhaskar comments that his conception of absence, or real negation, is not at >all like Hegel's notion of "nothing," but that it is a bit like Sartre's >notion of "negatite." > >C. Levels of analysis >Finally, Bhaskar tells us that the transcendental realism propounded in RTS >in fact represents only one aspect of the far more comprehensive theory that >he is now going to advance. Dialectical critical realism, Bhaskar says, >operates at four different levels of analysis, each of the first three of >which, at least, involves the resolution (or so Bhaskar claims) of a >different philosophical problem. As noted earlier, the first level of >analysis, that expressed in the "general theory of science" set out in RTS, >is a response to the problem of actualism. The second level of analysis, >"prefigured" by the TMSA, is a response to the problem of monovalence. The >third level of analysis is a response tothe problem of extensionalism. >Bhaskar does not, in the Introduction, specify the specific problem, >philosophical or practical, that is associated with the fourth level of >analysis. > >For some reason (does anyone know the reason?), Bhaskar labels these four >levels of analysis as follows: "first moment," "second edge," "third level" >and "fourth dimension." 1M, 2E, 3L and 4D for short. Again Bhaskar >emphasizes that these aspects of the theory that he will be advancing do not >correspond to any divisions or levels of analysis in Hegel's philosophy. > >All of this for starters. > >I'm going to leave the detailed comparison with Hegel to others, but there >are a few last general issues worth touching on. > > >III. General Comments on Philosophy, the Philosophy of Science, Science and >Hegel > >A. >Just before he turns to Hegel, Bhaskar comments on the relationship between >the philosophy of science and philosophy more generally. The question he's >responding to is "Why should we think that a philosophy of science is of >anything but the most limited significance?" Here's what he says: (p. 14-5) > >1. "(S)cience provides a hidden `analogical grammar' for the metacritical >analysis of philosophies." [And then there's a footnote citing Buchdahl, a >interesting commentator on Kant, among other things -- but nothing further >on precisely what is meant by notion of "analogical grammar" that is being >attributed to Buchdahl. Is anyone familiar with the referenced text, >*Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science*?] > >2. Working out what the implicit accounts of science are that are carried by >"philosophical theses of an epistemological kind" can illuminate flaws in >the latter. > >3. In this work, he is going to treat science as simply one instance of >"engaged concernful human activity." [In so doing he understands himself to >be "taking up the challenge of Heideggarian existential phenomenology."] > >4. All of this said, science - and by extension the philosophy of science - >*is* of only limited import. That is, scientific knowledge is only one of >a range of human values. It is neither the supreme value, nor the value >according to which the relative weights of others may be judged. The >[intransitive] objects of science do not "exhaust reality." The >[transitive] objects of science, i.e., the theories that we adopt at any one >time, "afford only a particular angle or slant on reality, picked out >precisely for its explanatory scope and power." (p. 15) > >5. Finally, in keeping with the idea that science *is* only of limited >importance, in a funny inversion of Kant [because Kant too wanted to leave >room for faith], Bhaskar insists that "what is (and what is not)" cannot be >identified with "what lies within the bounds of human cognitive competence." >Note that this is not simply the argument against empiricist phenomenalism >that we get in RTS. I.e., it is not about the error of equating "the real" >with "the empirical," to use the RTS language; rather, it is about the error >(according to Bhaskar) of equating the real with that which in principle can >be cognized. Bhaskar's explicit formulation of this is is quite important >in my view. At a minimum, it is a clear indication (if we needed one) of >how much more open to speculative metaphysics is Bhaskar than was Kant. > > >B. >As I said, maybe someone else can help us with the details of the Hegel >discussion. I got two main things from it: (1) like Adorno, Bhaskar is in >favor of what he, as did Adorno, calls "negative" dialectics -- an account >of dialectical processes in which there is no presumption that such >processes end in closed totalities -- or, more precisely, no presumption >that they end ultimately in one closed totality; (2) the rational kernel of >Hegelian dialectics is the sense in which it captures the logic of >scientific development. > >That's what I got, anyway. > >Ruth > > > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005