File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2001/bhaskar.0106, message 6


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005