From: Hans Despain <DESPAIN-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu>
Date:          Wed, 8 Mar 1995 17:43:40 GMT-700
Subject:       Re: Bhaskar and dialectics


Ralph Dumain in a pervious post complained that Bhaskar's *Dialectic* 
"very style betrays whatever seriousness of intent he may posses."  
That the Hegel- Marx connection (which Dumain is trying to use 
Bhaskar book as a reference) is too thick in philosophical jargon, 
quasi-mathematical symbols, and over-philosophized argument etc.... 
And the "few paragraphs that make some sense" he has seen better 
explained elsewhere.  

There are indeed some problem in penetrating the style of Bhaskar.  
But with some effort this is not quite as difficult as it first 
appears, and in no way would I personally be willing to say that 
Bhaskar is our in house James Joyce; the *Dialectic* being his 
*Finnegans Wake*.  

I am unsure how just how valuable Bhaskar contribution is at this 
point, but he must be taken much more serious then Dumain's review 
would indicate.

First, I think it is a mistake to use Bhaskar as a reference to the 
Hegel-Marx debate, as Dumain and Keen seem to suggest they do.  
Bhaskar indeed has some insights in this debate, but this is NOT the 
thrust of his argument.  If this is the argument one hopes to excerpt 
from the book I too would suspect one will be faced with frustration. 
Moreover, instead of trying to penetrate this work for these insights, 
one would be better adviced to perhaps, instead of waiting for Keen's 
post, to turn to where Bhaksar has already condensed these arguments 
for us, in 1) dialectic, materialism, and idealism references in 
Bottomore (ed.) Marxist Dictionary... 2) *Plato etc.* (I believe 
chapter 6).  

Bhaskar as Fellini has suggested in past posts is attempting to save 
dialectics from Hegelian and Marxian interpreations, by attempting to 
approach a *real* defination of dialectic.  This is quite a 
project!  I, like seemingly Dumain, am not sure how successful 
Bhaskar project is, but it deserves it due.

Second, the project includes explicating ontological dialectics 
which are only implicit in Marx, and perhaps confussed in Hegel, and 
maybe misplaced in Engels and Lukcas, while at the same time 
attempting to construct such ontological dialectics (for example Hegel 
and Engles) to be in phase with, not only epistemological dialectics 
(for example Marx and Hegel), but relational dialectics (for example 
Lukcas).

Third, Marx himself is not clear with what basis he has for using 
epistemological dialectics, one must return to Hegel (see Tony Smith 
*Marx's Logic of Capital*), which is itself very problematic, or 
return to Kant (Colletti Marxism and Hegel), which seems to confuse 
the matter even further.  Personally I reject Colletti's argument, and 
find that Smith's argument, with its ground in the non-Metaphysical 
interpretation of Hegel, though capable of offering better 
ontological grounds, remains rooted in first (seemingly) Hegel's 
external teleology, and second some sort of dialectics of nature, 
which appear to be implicitly out of phase with both Hegel and Engles. 

And forth an example:  Bhaskar's dialectic is not the same as Hegel's 
(or Marx's) nor does one have to be Hegelian to think dialectically.  
Bhaskar's dialectic begins from absences, which he argues is the 
hidden propeler behind the Hegelian and Marxian dialectic.  This in 
itself seems to be a very valuable insight and step forward in my 
view.

Bhaskar is arguing that to approach a useful meaning of the dialectic 
one must use a meta-language, this is the first problem wading 
through his work.  Second, because Bhaskar is attempting to leap 
forward, oppossed to remaining in the same over-anaylized issues, he 
briefly (and perhaps too briefly) describes the philosoical 
historical issues in a language and from point of view which can be 
more easily transformed into direction he would like to take the 
problems while approaching their resolution, i.e., Dialectical 
Critical (transcendental) Realism. 

Perhaps Bhaksar assumes, or doesn't care if, his reader is 
fully fimilar with the philosophical issue at hand.  This means many 
references in order to penetrate his writing and project.  Like 
anyone, this is a problem for myself.  But, unlike Dumain I am 
unwilling to write Bhaskar's project off so soon.  He has already 
provided the philosophy of science for the (otherwise 
confussed Althusserian, Feuerbachian, Engelsian, materialist, "anti"-
idealist) Marxian scientific project in *A Realist Theory of Science* 
and *Possibility of Naturalism*, he has offered the ethical corollary 
to these in *Scienticfic Realism and Human Emancipation*, *Philosophy 
and the Idea of Freedom*.  Now he is attempting to tackle the 
philosophical problems that have plauged the westeren tradition in 
*Philosophy and the Eclipse of Reason: Towards a Metacritique of the 
Philosophical Tradition*, *Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom*, and 
*Plato Etcetera: The Problems of Philosophy and Their Resolution*.

I don't think we can condemn his dialectic until we have an 
understanding of first, his project toward science; second, his 
project toward ethics and human emancipation; and third, the 
philosophical issues he is attempting to resolve.

I don't know how successful he as been to this point, but I do 
believe him to be our best hope.  The very least he is due is to be 
taken serious!

Hans Despain
University of Utah
despain-AT-econ.sbs.utah.edu




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

     ------------------