Re: BHA: exciting threads!

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, that's about it.

Thanks for the recommendation on *Moral Philosophy*.

Mervyn

Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx> writes
>Hiya Mervyn,
>
>At 11:00 PM 1/28/01 +0000, you wrote:
>>Dear Ruth
>>
>>My suggesting that you consult a book carries no implications re who
>>told who about it.
>
>No problem.  I was just teasing you.  (I did read it over, by the way.)
>
>You wrote:
>
>>I don't see the difference from Bhaskar (except to the extent that he has
>perhaps
>>lately espoused a form of unconditional knowledge) or why you think that
>>for Bhaskar philosophy 'from the standpoint of redemption' is a piece of
>>cake.
>
>I had said:
>>If I've understood you, it sounds as though your answer is that you don't
>>think that there *is* an appreciable difference in their views.   ... Do
>you basically >just think, then, that Adorno is worried over nothing?
>(Since Adorno's position is >encapsulated in Bhaskar's, and Bhaskar isn't
>worried?)
>
>It sounds from your post as though I didn't get your position quite right.
>Let me take another stab at it.  The part that I got wrong doesn't seem to
>be that you don't see much of a difference between them (since you reaffirm
>that).  That leaves the part about whether you think that Adorno is worried
>over nothing.  If I've understood you any better *this* time, it sounds as
>though you're saying that, in your view, (1) Adorno is *less* worried than I
>think he is and (2) Bhaskar is *more* worried than I think he is.
>Is that more like it?
>
>I don't want to hog the airwaves with talk about Adorno, but speaking of
>books...if I haven't mentioned it before, there is a really good book that
>you and others might be interested in, if you don't know of it already.
>It's a set of lectures, recently translated, that Adorno gave on moral
>philosophy, in the spring and summer of 1963.  It's called *Problems of
>Moral Philosophy*.  I've been reading it slowly over the past bunch of
>months.  I'm enjoying it for two reasons.  One is because it's a transcript
>of spoken lectures, so Adorno is very, very clear in it about what he means.
>For a variety of reasons Adorno did not write in a comparable style.  But
>his spoken word is downright endearing -- and, as I said, very clear.  The
>other reason that it's great is that he talks a lot about Kant, and about
>the possibility of any kind of pre- or non-Kantian realism, in the course of
>the lectures.  So I've been finding it really relevant to the task of
>comparing him with Bhaskar.
>
>Warmly,
>Ruth
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

--
Mervyn Hartwig
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---