From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ronny_Selb=E6k_Myhre?= <rsmyhre-AT-frisurf.no>
Subject: Re: BHA: real "essences" of "things"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:01:41 +0200


Clarification:

In the first line: it should be 'compatible' not 'incompatible'


Best Regards,

Ronny S. Myhre



Dear List,

Well, I for one don't think essentialism is compatible with nominalism. I agree that nominalism don't entail irrealism with regards to unobservable entities but that doesn't make it compatible with essentialism.

In RTS Bhaskar is comitted to natural kinds. This entails some sort of aristotelian essentialism. It also seem natural to reject both bundle theories of substance (like Plato) and substratum theories of substance (like american philosopher G. Bergmann and Aristotle on some accounts). Instead it is fruitful to interpret natural wholes as hylomorphic structures (that is compounds of form and matter). In short commitment to aristotelian substances. These are not mereological aggregates but real irreducible structures. The form of these entities structures its parts, and as such is responsible for whatever emergent properties the substance may have. 

If nominalism was true essences would be redundant; all things just were individuals. Resemblance would have to be taken as a primitive relation and as such not open for analysis. This seems just like the regularity accounts of causation where causal regularities are just brute facts of the world. There are no reasons at all why such regularities obtains.

So as critical realists we must be comitted to real essences, essentialism (natural kinds), irreducible structures (emergent properties) and irreducible dispositions (modal realism). I would also like to add that the CRs ontology would be enriched by endorsing aristotelian substances (hylomorphism).

Does anyone know if Bhaskar recognises individual essences in his ontology. This is one of the main discussion themes among contemporary neo-aristotelians.

A more elaborate discussion iof these themes is contained in my dissertation "Structure of the Negative: An Essay on the New Essentialism and the Ontology of Causal Powers" (nearly completed) which is influenced by critical realism, neo-aristotelianism and above all else Australian philosopher Brian D. Ellis. It is my belief that CR would be enriched by paying more attention to contemporary analytical metaphysics as there is considerable overlap between the two movements.

(I apologise for any misspelling and bad grammar in my mail)

Best Regards,

Ronny S. Myhre
Department of Philosophy
Norwegian University of Technology and Science



Mark A. Foster:


> Hi,
> 
> My understanding is that essence pertains to the real dimension, the laws or hidden structures which cannot be empirically observed. It has nothing to do with the medieval realism-nominalism debate. Bhaskar is distinguishing the real from the empirical, not from the nominal (particularism).
> 
> I see no reason why ontological nominalism would not be compatible with critical realism. The "essence" is not an attribute of entities (unlike with Plato) but a set of laws or structures which make outward appearances possible.
> 
> Mark A. Foster, Ph.D.
> "Sacred cows make the best hamburger" 
> -- Mark Twain and Abbie Hoffman
> 
> 
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



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