Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:19:51 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Chomsky on Bhaskar


Hi Ruth, Marko

>First, personally, I agree with you about the verbiage.  The first and second 
>of 
>Bhaskar's books are not nearly as bad, though (*A Realist Theory of Science* 
>and 
>*The Possibility of Naturalism*). 

We all know you don't like the later, dialectical books, Ruth, but do
you seriously want to maintain that even the early ones are verbose?
Fair go, mate! By common account that's the opposite of the truth. (Or
is 'not nearly as bad' verbiage for 'excellent'?)

Mervyn


Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca> writes
>Hi Marko,
>
>Welcome!
>
>I'm sure others will have lots to say, so I'm just going to be quick.  
>
>First, personally, I agree with you about the verbiage.  The first and second 
>of 
>Bhaskar's books are not nearly as bad, though (*A Realist Theory of Science* 
>and 
>*The Possibility of Naturalism*).  The only thing to keep in mind is that 
>Bhaskar's thought has developed, so what you get in the early books is 
>different 
>from what you get in the later books.  Some readers of Bhaskar think that the 
>early positions are essentially retained in the later work, others don't.  But 
>in any case, you obviously don't get what is new in the later work if you only 
>read the early work.  My own feeling is that the early works are very 
>important.
>
>Second, depending on your interests, you might want to switch gears and begin 
>with Andrew Collier's wonderful, accessible introduction to critical realism.  
>It's called *Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar's Philosophy*.  
>Im 
>pretty sure it's Verso, 1994.  In fact, I would whole-heartedly suggest that 
>you 
>*do* start there.  It is a pleasure to read.
>
>Finally, your question about the difference between Bhaskar and Habermas is a 
>big one.  It might make sense to ask it again after looking at the Collier 
>intro, so at least you have a feel for what is distinctive about critical 
>realism.  In advance, I would say that from my perspective the major difference 
>is their metaphysics.  I know that's an incredibly general statement, but at 
>least it conveys the idea that there is indeed a substantive difference.
>
>Warmly,
>Ruth
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>

Subscription forms: 
http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html



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