Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:34:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca>
Subject: Re: BHA: real "essences" of "things"


Hi all,

Thanks for the responses.  

Ronny, Your dissertation topic sounds terrific.  If I saw it in a bookstore,
I'd buy it in a second.  I'm pretty sure that I agree with everything that
you've said.  

Incidentally, I just read an article, first published in 1954 in The Journal
of Philosophy, by Irving M. Copi, called "Essence and Accident."  It is a
very nicely constructed argument to the effect that Locke's "real essences"
can be squared with Aristotle's "essential substances," and that such
objects can be known scientifically.  I read it in a collection edited by
Stephen P. Schwartz, called *Naming, Necessity and Natural Kinds* (Cornell,
1977).  If there was ever an article that should be all over Bhaskar's early
footnotes, this is it.  The guy pretty much sets out Bhaskar's account of
scientific discovery.  Extremely useful, I thought.

Your post suggests that you are in Norway.  Is your work in English by any
chance?

Warmly,
Ruth

  

At 06:41 PM 6/15/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear List,
>
>Well, I for one don't think essentialism is incompatible 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 ---
>



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