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:
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005