File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0306, message 159


From: Mikehpaed-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 11:17:15 EDT
Subject: BHA: Bhaskar-Callinicos debate



--part1_57.1efb309c.2c2f0b7b_boundary

This is my first post to the llist. I am taking the plunge because the 
Bhaskar-Callinicos debate gave me a better sense of how Bhaskar's notion of a 
meta-reality represents such a huge departure from his earlier writings even though 
Bhaskar himself sees his latest work as part of the coherent development of 
his views. It also confirmed my belief that Bhaskar has moved in the wrong 
direction.

Several previous posts framed the debate in terms of a theory-practice 
division with Marxism and/or critical realism. I think that another key issue is the 
goal of philosophy. I agree with the early Bhaskar's notion that philosophy 
should be an "underlaborer", aiding critical theorists and scientists to 
understand the world as part of a project to radically change it. (Dewey's advocacy 
of a "public philosophy" is similar in this respect.)  At some point, perhaps 
with Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom,  Bhaskar began to argue that his 
philosophy could provide the answers to all of the key philosophical questions. It is 
this notion that philosophy qua Master Key that I object to. My understanding 
of Bhaskar's meta-reality is that the key not only opens philosophical doors 
to truth but helps us find all the paths to Meaning.

Bhaskar attempts to frame this notion of philosopy qua Master Key as part of 
the development of his perspective. It's just another level in his more 
complete understanding of the world. But, to use a wretched phrase, sometimes 
changes in quantity at some point become a change in quality. In this care, for the 
worse. The need to find a complete answer is more of a religious (in the bad 
sense) impulse than the stance of a critical theorist.

It is not that I agree with every criticism that Callinicos made against 
Bhaskar in the debate. For example, Callinicos argued that Bhaskar's 
transcendental argument for a stratfied reality is weak because it doesn't start with an 
indubitable premise, as Kant's deduction of the categories did. I thought that 
Bhaskar's response was quite good: it is not a question of starting with 
premises that are certain in some universal sense but of beginning with premises 
held by your philosophical opponents as part of an immanent critique.

Still, Callinicos' basic criticism is correct: Bhaskar's meta-reality does 
not offer the conceptual tools to help us to create a beautiful, loving world 
through the critical analysis of our current reality. Bhaskar's discussion of 
"ground states", non-duality, and meaning take us instead in a different 
direction - toward the quest for oneness and a perfect world.

Mike Slott

--part1_57.1efb309c.2c2f0b7b_boundary

HTML VERSION:

This is my first post to the llist. I am taking the plunge because the Bhaskar-Callinicos debate gave me a better sense of how Bhaskar's notion of a meta-reality represents such a huge departure from his earlier writings even though Bhaskar himself sees his latest work as part of the coherent development of his views. It also confirmed my belief that Bhaskar has moved in the wrong direction.

Several previous posts framed the debate in terms of a theory-practice division with Marxism and/or critical realism. I think that another key issue is=20the goal of philosophy. I agree with the early Bhaskar's notion that philosophy should be an "underlaborer", aiding critical theorists and scientists to understand the world as part of a project to radically change it. (Dewey's=20advocacy of a "public philosophy" is similar in this respect.)  At some point, perhaps with Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom,  Bhaskar began to argue that his philosophy could provide the answers to all of the key philosophical questions. It is this notion that philosophy qua Master Key that I=20object to. My understanding of Bhaskar's meta-reality is that the key not only opens philosophical doors to truth but helps us find all the paths to Meaning.

Bhaskar attempts to frame this notion of philosopy qua Master Key as part of the development of his perspective. It's just another level in his more complete understanding of the world. But, to use a wretched phrase, sometimes changes in quantity at some point become a change in quality. In this care, for the worse. The need to find a complete answer is more of a religious (in=20the bad sense) impulse than the stance of a critical theorist.

It is not that I agree with every criticism that Callinicos made against Bhaskar in the debate. For example, Callinicos argued that Bhaskar's transcendental argument for a stratfied reality is weak because it doesn't start with=20an indubitable premise, as Kant's deduction of the categories did. I thought that Bhaskar's response was quite good: it is not a question of starting with premises that are certain in some universal sense but of beginning with premises held by your philosophical opponents as part of an immanent critique.

Still, Callinicos' basic criticism is correct: Bhaskar's meta-reality does not offer the conceptual tools to help us to create a beautiful, loving world through the critical analysis of our current reality. Bhaskar's discussion=20of "ground states", non-duality, and meaning take us instead in a different=20direction - toward the quest for oneness and a perfect world.

Mike Slott
--part1_57.1efb309c.2c2f0b7b_boundary-- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005