BHA: reply to Martti - Hegel, Adorno and RB

[Ruth Groff <rgroff@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Martti,

Thanks for your post.  So is it that I got RB wrong on Hegel's rational
kernel or that RB's wrong on Hegel's rational kernel?

I agree with what you've said about Adorno, but I don't think that what I
said establishes very much of a similarity.  Only that they both adopt the
term "negative dialectics" and that they both think that dialectical
processes can be/are/ought to be open-ended.  Is even that too much, do you
think?

Warmly,
Ruth


At 09:15 AM 2/16/01 +0200, you wrote:
>
>Hi Ruth,
>
>Only one notion to your elaborative accounts:
>
>> >B.
>> >As I said, maybe someone else can help us with the details of the Hegel
discussion.  I got two main things from it:  (1) like Adorno, Bhaskar is in
favor of what he, as did Adorno, calls "negative" dialectics -- an account
of dialectical processes in which there is no presumption that such
processes end in closed totalities -- or, more precisely, no presumption
that they end ultimately in one closed totality; (2) the rational kernel of
Hegelian dialectics is the sense in which it captures the logic of
scientific development.
>> >Ruth
>
>For Adorno there was no dialectical processes as preexisting, only for
human individual there was contradictions of an arbiquous (or only radical
negations) kinds in consciousness. Adorno did not had ontological world,
only some ontic things, taken as things (not only empirical and not
theoretical or conceptual at all). There is no 'similarity' in Adorno and
Bhaskar in here at all. As for Hegel, it is difficult to conceive what is
Hegel's account for open totalities because of his early turn 'from
ontologial dialectics to spiritualist world', where there is no real things
captured by transcedental human knowing.
>
>Regards,
>
>Martti Puttonen
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---