Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 09:16:51 -0400
From: Ruth Groff <rgroff-AT-yorku.ca>
Subject: Re: BHA: me again -- same topic


Hi Hans,

I agree with you that sometimes in Marx it really sounds as though certain social structures, at least, have purposes.  Aristotle can get away with non-intentional things having purposes because the whole underlying metaphysics is teleological; I'd have to think more about whether I think it actually works for Marx/proponents of Marx's analysis.  But I see what you're saying.  

I also agree with you that nowhere in PON does Bhaskar say that social structures are *not* bearers of purposes.  Still, I don't think that I feel comfortable reading him as saying that they are.  On social structures and efficient cause, I'm not as sure as you;  I need to go back over it, but I think that there is at least an intimation that social structures are not efficient causes.  [At the same time, I do believe that there are contradictory thrusts (sorry about the heave-ho imagery; I can't think of any other way to put it) coming from various of the different lines of argument.  If social structures are *not* efficient causes, I do think that that either weakens the case for naturalism re: social science a little or weakens the PON demarcation between social science and psychology.  For my taste, the whole position is set out too ambiguously.]

Warmly,
Ruth



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