Re: BHA: society, santa, truth, etc.

[Colin Wight <Colin.Wight@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ruth,

Thanks for the anecdote about Santa and i' glad to hear that the experience
wasn't too traumatic for you.

>I assume, though, that if Santa is real despite never having existed, then
>so is God.

And we might add fairies, hobgoblins, vizywhats (my own personal make
believe little critters), at least insofar as it is being argued that the
existence of discourse about X mean that X exists.


>And couldn't one argue on the basis of DPF that the cause of strife around
>the globe is the absence of God, since (1) God is, on this view, real and
>(2) presumably things would be very different if God either existed or
>decided to impose world peace?

Well, of course I don't accept this since I don't believe in him in the
first place - that is I don't believe god exists (and please let me add I
do think that discourses and practices based upon the concept God exist and
ARE VERY, VERY, VERY causally efficacious; do i really need to add this?)


Also, if Santa and God both count as de-onts, and count on the grounds that
>lots of people act on the intersubjectively held belief that they actually
>exist, then it seems as though what makes something be a *determinate*
>absence (and thus a de-ont) is simply that it happens to be the
>(non-existent and/or non-present) referent of a causally efficatius belief
>or expectation.  Louis is right: I'm still not sold.


Well you may not be sold, but if I get you right you are wrong. we have
discourses of Minotaur's etc, but as far as I can see very few practices.
The mere existence of an absence does not make it causally efficacious any
more than the mere existence of a presence makes it causally efficacious.
Still, you doubting Thomas (as we say) how do you deal witn the lack of
water argument causing your dehydration that i advanced sometime ago?


>
>Howie, could spell out more of what you mean when you say that the
>multiplicity of truth(s) is an ontological (as well as epistemic) phenomenon?

Well, I'm not howie, but:

1.	Water is wet
2.	water is H2O
3.	water quenches thirst
4.	Water has the power to put out fires.....


On RB's account of SS can you fleece out what you understand by it and the
bits you don't like; and the hard bit, provide a better account. RB doesn't
claim that his account is perfect, only that it is the best available that
he is aware of.

Thanks,


=============================================


Dr. Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Wales
SY23 3DA
Tel: (01970) 621769


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---