Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:54:03 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: transcendental arguments


Hi Ruth,

>What I said is
>that I don't agree with the equation of the two terms (transcendental argument
>and immanent critique).  I think that the terms have different, albeit similar,
>well-established meanings.

But the meanings distinguish the two on the basis of content (i.e. the 
premises are thought to be absolutely indubitable in the one case and 
only relatively so in the other). This seems problematic, because their 
form is identical (you seem to agree with this): in form, immanent 
critique proceeds by transcendental argument about the premises of a 
rival position. The fact that meanings are well established is not in 
itself necessarily a good reason for adhering to them. (I once had a 
head of school who when asked to explain why he was doing X was wont to 
say, 'Because it's academic practice'.) Your position would seem to make 
life very difficult for CR philosophers, since according to Bhaskar at 
any rate, and regardless of the content, dialectical argument is a form 
of transcendental argument and transcendental argument is a form of the 
retroductive-explanatory argument familiar to science. Other argument 
forms--deduction, induction etc--don't depend on the alleged 
indubitability or otherwise of their premises to qualify for 
classification, why should this one do so?

Mervyn

In message <1056893358.3efee9aec6136-AT-mymail.yorku.ca>, rgroff-AT-yorku.ca 
writes
>Hi Mervyn,
>
>In terms of Bhaskar's position, I think you've pretty much re-stated 
>what I said.
>
>Bhaskar suggests in the exchange with Callinicos that what he means by
>"transcendental argument" is "immanent critique."  (And don't worry, I haven't
>forgotten about the claim to fallibilism, or how it fits here.)  I was actually
>pleased to see that this is RB's understanding of the character of the RTS
>argument, because that's how I had always interpreted it.
>
>But my critical point was at a different level of abstraction.  What I said is
>that I don't agree with the equation of the two terms (transcendental argument
>and immanent critique).  I think that the terms have different, albeit similar,
>well-established meanings.
>
>It's like when people say "I believe in God, but what I mean by 'God' 
>is 'people
>being nice to eachother, not anything having to do with a deity.'"  I always
>think that it's kind of cheating to retain the force of the weightier
>terminology by continuing to use it while summarily changing its meaning.  So
>for me, if I was led by my fallibilism to think that the established
>argument-form "transcendental argument" is by definition impossible (and that
>what such arguments really are are immanent critiques), then I would drop the
>term.
>
>r.
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




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