From: "Howard Engelskirchen" <howarde-AT-twcny.rr.com> Subject: BHA: Re: "The Real" and what is point of whacking anti-realists? Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:37:50 -0500 Hi Emrah and all, I have three questions related (roughly) to the all science is ideology argument: First, Adorno writes the following: "Idealism was the first to make clear that the reality in which men live is not unvarying and independent of them. Its shape is human and even absolutely extra-human nature is mediated through consciousness. Men cannot break through that. They live in social being, not in nature." Wouldn't the last sentence be more accurately expressed if it said "They live in social being *and also* in nature. That is, without doubt all appropriation of nature in thought is mediated by consciousness. But we don't only engage nature in thought. We engage nature as one of its causal powers interacting with other causal powers and the resistance we meet in doing so does not depend on either consciousness or social being. In other word our mediation with nature is not only through consciousness but also through practical causal activity. Is this obvious to everyone? Second, Habermas writes the following: "The concept of the objective world encompasses everything that subjects capable of speech and action do not 'make themselves' irrespective of their interventions and intentions." I wondered about this "do not make themselves." Implicit here is the idea of causal powers, isn't it? In other words we could reformulate Habermas more succinctly as follows: 'The concept of the objective world encompasses causal powers.' Has anything been lost in the reformulation? I mean this is the point of Bhaskar's distinction between the actual and the real, isn't it? That is, there are all sorts of things in the objective world that we in fact do not make. But I'm not sure there is a whole lot of what counts as actual that we could not make. The one thing that we do not make are the world's causal powers. So, the argument goes, to take on the realist concept of a fully mind independent objective world means to take on the concept of causally potent structures. To accept a mind independent objective world is to be ipso facto anti-Humean. Third, to come to Steve's defense: I have never understood Steve's distinction between science and engineering, but Habermas makes a distinction between discourse and action that may be relevant. If science is considered discourse only and all scientific action considered engineering, then the distinction Habermas makes between performative certainty and warranted assertability would apply. And, yes, Ruth, in his recent work Habermas explicitly rejects as insufficient the account you reviewed in your last post -- the idea that truth is based on ideal warranted assertability in an ideal speech community. He is very clear that truth is not epistemic; it is not a matter of how we use language or of justification only. Truth depends on the way the world is. He writes: "Pragmatism makes us aware that everyday practice rules out suspending claims to truth in principle." He means here that when we act we have a naive certainty that the beliefs in terms of which we act are true -- we don't suspend truth claims when we act. (The debt to Peirce here, Tobin, is plentifully acknowledged.) He continues: "Everyday routines and habituated communication work on the basis of certainties that guide our actions. This 'knowledge' that we draw on performatively has the Platonic connotation that we are operating with 'truths' -- with sentences whose truth conditions are fulfilled. As soon as such certainties are dislodged from the framework of what we take for granted in the lifeworld [by the resistance it meets in the way the world actually is, ie by our failures and frustrations -- howard's note] and are thus no longer naively accepted, they become just so many questionable assumptions. In the transition from action to discourse, what is taken to be true is the first thing to shed its mode of practical certainty and to take on instead the form of a hypothetical statement whose validity remains undetermined until it passes or fails the test of argumentation. Looking beyond the level of argumentation, we can comprehend the pragmatic role of a Janus-faced truth that establishes the desired internal connection between performative certainty and warranted assertability." That is, he argues that what is true depends on the way the world is, not on any ideal speech situation or on warranted assertability. But the minute we are not acting, but have instead submitted truth claims to discursive inquiry, then the applicable tests are the tests of argumentation. So if we act, and our performative certainties are shaken by failure, then we may repair through reengaging in discourse, etc. So, to come back to the distinction between science and engineering, if engineering is taken to be the domain action (of performative certainty) and science restricted to the domain of discourse, you could make some such argument as Steve has hinted at. But it is a funny use of the word science in any event. And, more significantly, it implies, as Habermas argues, a realism. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Emrah Goker" <emrah_goker-AT-hotmail.com> To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:39 AM Subject: BHA: "The Real" and what is point of whacking anti-realists? > Positioned as a marxist CR myself, I cannot help but suspect the merits of > scapegoating/whacking "Steve", or ontological anti-realists in general. > Bhaskar had a discussion on "commensurability" somewhere, and if I am not > misremembering, one of the points was the impossibility of certain > ontologies to speak to each other (despite possible dialogue between their > epistemologies). Chris Norris, another great basher of anti-realism, tried > to hear and speak to Jacques Derrida's graphematic ontology tirelessly in > the past -- I guess he gave up by now -- but as long as CR cannot assimilate > deconstructionism or the latter cannot colonize CR, incommensurability > reigns. > > Of course, the point is, my CR comrades would say, a coherent anti-realist > "grounding", without serious contradictions, is impossible. Hence, I guess, > the "merit" of anti-realist whacking -- to challenge the adversary to come > up with a ground that holds. (In my field, sociology, the whacking is even > more violent when the challenge is about research design and methodology, > and the defense is usually more pathetic than a phiolosophical defense of > anti-realism.) But because of incommensurability such challenges transform > into domineering assaults, and there is a lot of talking *past* each other. > What will satisfy a CRist in an "Ontology Death Match"? The conversion, > submission or liquidation of the adversary? > > "Steve" writes about "the Real" in a recent reply to Jamie, the basic point > being "the Real is impossible to grasp or even encounter". Now, rather than > Schmittian war-making, Socratic pedagogy might work better. Why not try to > force a poorly-formed anti-realist position into a more coherent one, since > there are obviously more clever anti-foundationalisms out there (as there > are terrible, not-that-terrible, and intelligent realisms)? > > For one thing, Slavoj Zizek would scratch his beard and slap his forehead > (and then maybe "Steve"s too) if he read him. Zizek's Lacanian split between > post- and pre-symbolic inscribes three diachronic moments into the category > of "the Real": (1) The thing that comes before symbolization, that causes > symbolization; (2) The thing that exists in the form of being symbolized; > (3) The "excess" that cannot be subsumed by the symbolization, that resists > the ordering of symbolization. > > So you have a richer anti-realist ground, though its concept of the Real > bulges painfully. At least, we are talking. Perhaps the conversation is > boring for a lot of CRs. But whacking does not make much conversation, > except the occasional battle cries. > > Emrah Goker > Department of Sociology > Columbia University > > _________________________________________________________________ > Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005