From: HDespain-AT-aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:20:12 EDT Subject: Re: BHA: real essences Hi Ruth, There seems to be two sides of such a stance. (1) the (neo-)Kantian view that exploits the ontological/epistemological ambiguity in coming to Know a thing's "essence" and (2) the nihilistic view that rejects the very ontological status of essences. In that you state your interlocutor maintains modern science has itself done away with any "talk" of essences, I take it that (s)he is employing the epistemological/ontological ambiguity to deny their existence, i.e. arguing from (1) to establish (2) (a rather common postmodern strategy). A stronger claim for the nihilistic stance would be to exploit time/change dimensions, that is essences evolve, develop or change through time, hence what was believed, or in fact once was, essential to thing, is no longer essential. Suggesting an analytical mistake or categorical error ... Nonetheless it seems to me none of this does away with a thing having an essence. It just makes its that much harder for human beings to come to Know a thing's essence. Questions I like to pose to the postmodern mind is something like this: puppies don't grow up to be frogs, how do I know this? Even the most modern of experimental scientists do not jump out of airplanes without parachutes, why? The ontological/epistemological ambiguity necessiates Transcendental arguements and reasoning (at least) for estabilishing a *philosophical ontology*. However, they will not relieve the epistemological anxieties of a *scientific ontology* (this necessitates science itself, experimental activity, [historical] constrastives, and abstraction). They do offer a very broad ontological boundary to work within. The time/change problem is more difficult, nonetheless I am not convinced that it denies essences. Rather it seems to necessitate dialectical logic, a conception of internal relation, and highlights the (ontological) role of contradiction and emergence. Hans D In a message dated 01-06-14 10:21:31 EDT, you write: << Hi guys, I'm in the midst of an exchange with a philosopher here who asked what I thought was an interesting question. I responded, but I'm curious as to what others might have said. My interlocutor suggested that modern experimental science has itself done away with any pre-Newtonian talk of "essences" in virtue of which things occur -- that the ontology of RTS, at least, is at odds with the substantive findings of natural scientists. Any takers? Ruth >> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005