Re: BHA: de-onts

[Mervyn Hartwig <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Richard,

>It seems to me that the burden or
>proof (or persuasion) is on those who seek to reify "absence."  Of course,
>absence is real.  If my name is on the class list, and I'm not in class,
>I'm "really absent."  Why call my absence a "de-ont"?

'De-ont', as I explained in another post, is just another (technical,
philosophical) term for 'absence'. So you can just call it 'absence' if
you want. (For the etymologically minded it usefully calls attention to
the relation between absence, constraint, need and morality, which is
central to Bhaskar's whole argument in DPF).

To use an interchangeable name for 'absence' is hardly to reify it. I
haven't claimed that it is a 'thing'. Maybe the problem is that you
yourself find it difficult to think of the world except in terms of
'things'.

All I'm arguing is what you concede, that absence is of course real. The
only reason why its reality is an issue here is that some realists on
the list don't accept its reality. Since 'absence' is the key category
of Bhaskar's DPF, this explains why we hardly ever get much past first
base in discussing that work.

In CR, the main criterion for what is real is whether X produces an
effect, i.e. is causal. Absence from a classroom can clearly be causal:
e.g. the class is small, the gap where you normally sit is palpable, you
were supposed to give the discussion paper, you had recently been
stressed and it seemed to some suicidal, after a few minutes the class
breaks up in panicked concern to go looking for you... However, as they
later learn, you had only missed your bus.

Being absent from the classroom did not and does not mean the same as
your being present at a bus shelter some miles away. The difference
makes a difference.

Mervyn


Richard Moodey <moodey001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>Hi de-ont debaters,
>
>I have been following this thread with some interest. Like Ruth, I am
>"totally unconvinced."  Unlike Ruth, I am not at all frustrated by it,
>because I see no need to refute it.  It seems to me that the burden or
>proof (or persuasion) is on those who seek to reify "absence."  Of course,
>absence is real.  If my name is on the class list, and I'm not in class,
>I'm "really absent."  Why call my absence a "de-ont"?
>
>Dick


     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---