File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2004/bhaskar.0401, message 13


Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:11:25 -0800
From: David Harvey <dharvey-AT-unr.nevada.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: Analytic philosophy


I find it ironic that someone with a University of Chicago moniker when discussing Rorty's
"pragmatism" does not use George Herbert Mead (or to a lesser extent John Dewey) to take apart Rorty
signifer by signifier.  The book by J. David Lewis and Richard L. Smith entitled American Sociology
and Pragmatism might be of use. If I had to choose a "pragmatism" that came close to Critical
Realism, Mead's might be the place to start since he at least griounds meaning in a socially
productive context of interactions with people and the world.  The latter two serve as checks upon
meaing production and attribution and the diversity of productions possible.  Just a thought.

vvmurthy-AT-uchicago.edu wrote:

> Hi Tobin, Dick,
>
> I think that the comment that CR is similar to analytic philosophy may stem
> from the fact that many analytic philosophers, such as Rorty and Putnam have
> turned to pragmatism.  Of course, they position themselves as critics
> of "analytic philosophy", but many of their arguments have been fairly
> influential in mainstream philosophical circles and Rorty and Putnam's
> arguments remain analytic, especially when compared to what is described as
> continental philosophy (Neitzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Lacan etc).  When
> compared to what is today called continental philosophy, Bhaskar's works
> definitely seem to resemble the analytic tradition.
>
> That said,  the analytic philosopher's version of pragmatism does not seem as
> realist as Bhaskar's philosophy.  I do not know much about analytic
> philosophy, but when Putnam was here, he made the following remark, which may
> actually be grist for Steve's mill:
>
> The two different points of view (molecular biologist and evolutionary
> biologist) even lead to different decisions about what is a dog, it would not
> be surprising to learn that molecular biologists classed Australian dingos as
> a kind of dog, and population biologists did not, for example.  And there are
> still other interests that can lead to still other, perfectly legitimate,
> decisions on what is and is not a "dog". For an ordinary "dog lover", wild
> dogs are not "dogs", whie for scientists they are.  Australian didgos, are
> paradigmatic dogts for the aboriginal inhabitants, whatever population
> biologists (or ordinary Europeans or Americans) may say.  All of these
> classifications are legitimate, and useful in the contexts for which they are
> designed.  To ask what the "real" essence of my last dog, Shlomit was, would
> be to ask a meaningless question.(Pragmatism Conference proceedings 6)
>
> Putnam then cites William James 1907 letter on pragmatism, in which he
> contends that we may group objects in different ways for different purposes.
> In some ways this CR would agree with this, but I wonder whether CR would
> endorse Putnam's following statement made on the following page of the same
> essay.  "The idea of one fixed conceptual vocabulary in which one can once and
> for all describe the structure of reality (as if it had only one fixed
> structure), whether in its traditional or its recent materialist form is
> untenable." (8) He then asserts that reality is "vague" and hence we reach an
> ultimate level.
>
> The reason I am not sure whether CR would agree with this is because I thought
> that CR endorsed a "categorical realism" in which certain categories exist in
> the world.  I might be wrong about this, which would mean that contemporary
> analytic philosophy, especially its pragmatist version, and CR are closer than
> I thought.
>
> Best,
> Viren
> Quoting "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu>:
>
> > Hi Tobin,
> >
> > I have always understood "analytic philosophy" to refer primarily to the
> > analysis of language that was inspired by the later Wittgenstein's rejection
> > of logical positivism.  If I thought CR was very much like this, I certainly
> > wouldn't be willing to invest much time on it.  I don't believe it to be
> > worthless, but I have always regarded it as a leading to a dead end.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Di k
> >
> >       -----Original Message-----
> >       From: Tobin Nellhaus [mailto:nellhaus-AT-gis.net]
> >       Sent: Sat 1/3/2004 11:06 AM
> >       To: Bhaskar list
> >       Cc:
> >       Subject: BHA: Analytic philosophy
> >
> >
> >
> >       Hi y'all--
> >
> >       In an informal context I recently heard someone describe CR as similar
> to
> >       analytic philosophy.  Frankly, not being widely educated in the
> breadth of
> >       philosophy, I have no idea what this means.  I thought analytic
> philosophy
> >       came from Bertand Russell and early Wittgenstein, so my initial
> reaction
> > was
> >       "Huh?"  Maybe one of you can explain?
> >
> >       Thanks,
> >
> >       T.
> >
> >       ---
> >       Tobin Nellhaus
> >       nellhaus-AT-mail.com
> >       "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >            --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> > ^?^?Ò¶¸©2)^ÞYªç^Êx^?üÂ^Q«miÈfz{l­é¨½ç^?^?ôá^ÊÉ^Þ²Æ zf²^Å«Þr^Éíj)Þu«miÈfz{lÂ^X^Ü^Ç^G«z·¦¢
> ÷^Ýý*+¯/ðyÚ'¢Ö¥^Ö^Ì^Z¶Ö^Ü^Æg§¶Ê'¶^X¬^Ö+-^?^?^?JÚâ¤È¦y^W©¢»^?þ^Úèqë,yÓ^H0JZ®Û^?^?ù®^Ö
> Ø©j»^¿^Ú,^v×±·úej)^?µìmn^Çr^?ù^^¦ßÚ¦^Ùbq«b¢^¿æ³ûgy^?^?^?^?^?~º&^Ö+-n^V¬^Ѫ^?^Ö+-³ûâ^ÖV {ûâ®^H§^É
> ¯Þvï^?
> >
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


--- 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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005