File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0311, message 68


From: "jamie morgan" <jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: BHA: Re: body-actual is dependent on body-cosmic
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:36:23 -0000


Phil, I didn't say that ethics are about decision procesdures I said That
ethics cannot ignore the real conditons of decisions withinsocieties this is
a structural andindividual event matter - a theory of ethics without this is
a theory of ethics without practical orientation or possibility of
intervention trabnsformation - if I said that all there was is decsiioons in
a vacuum that would be an upwards conflation resulting in a form of
pragmatics that not even Rorty defends - oplease try to read what people
have actually said a bit more carefully before deciding to place them in
camps.
Truth and goodness are not irreducibly philosophical they are irreducibly
problems of living that philosophy grapples with but equally so does
religion, so do most individuals instantiated withins ocietuies with no help
from philosophy and on the basis of no better guide than how they are
socialised and what they make of their hsitorical conditions - this is why
Marx saw much of modern morality as Recht - if you are a Marxist surely you
cannot possibly think ethics are irreducibly philosophical? As for
body-cosmic I haven't a clue what that means but it seems like a rather
unfortunate chocie of terms as regards connotations for those such as I who
don't know what it means - it has a trivial LSD ring to it - though I'm sure
that is not what it is meant to convey. Again, please expand.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Walden" <phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:31 AM
Subject: BHA: body-actual is dependent on body-cosmic


> Hi Jamie,
>
> I note that you do not state where you are on the question of the
> body-cosmic/body-actual.  Fair enough, I guess you haven't read IN
> DEFENCE OF OBJECTIVITY and you're unlikely to have read my chapter in
> the book to celebrate Andrew Collier's life because it hasn't been
> published yet.  But if you are determined to assert that ethics is about
> decision procedures in what you posit as "real situations in real
> societies" then you are in the camp of Rorty.  The point is, Jamie, that
> ethics is not substantiated at this actualist level, rather questions of
> truth and goodness are irreducibly philosophical.  I'm sorry if for you
> this means truth is abstract, but the good news for you is that you
> don't have to take Roy Bhaskar's, Andrew Collier's, or my word that
> truth is concrete, you can if you prefer turn to Hegel, Marx, Engels,
> etc.  The question of the relevance of the universality and objectivity
> of matter in motion is about the truth that the philosophical reflection
> of the subject is material, and is a part of universal objective matter.
> That is what makes truth concrete.  "Real social conditions" as you put
> it, include - most importantly, and if we are to be dialectically
> materialist - the ideas and the content that is in people's minds.  That
> is why you have got the question of concrete and abstract back-to-front.
> Any help?
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
> multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
> ---
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005