BHA: Re: Re: Epistemological relativism

["Marko Beljac" <beljac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the clarification and the sources. Its good to see that Bhaskar
is not a social constructivist. You would not guess it from previous
discussion!
At any rate I have some further comments, which appear immediately below the
relevant text which is indented with arrows.


> 1. Your universal human nature or essence, but with the difference that
> Bhaskar sees it as (slowly) evolving and changing, and not static, as
> you do. This he calls in DPF our 'core universal human nature', and in
> FEW our 'essential self' or 'dharma'. This can be thought of as the
> psycho-biological capacities and potentials we are borne with as
> infants, which as you say are fundamentally similar no matter where you
> are in history or society. To be consistent, however, I think you need
> to take its non-static nature on board, because you yourself correctly
> say that it is profoundly influenced by social evolution. As the work of
> critical realists like Peter Dickens (see the last JCR) is showing this
> psycho-biological human nature is being slowly changed right now 'in the
> image of capital'. Social constructionism denies the reality of human
> nature in this sense; Bhaskar is not a social constructionist.


I agree absolutely. The relationship between human nature and social
evolution is for mine the key question in social theory. I am trying to
think the matter through, but thus far all I have gotten is Aspirin
prescriptions! I think that Marx's conception of historical materialism
could be the key link. I think that a naturalised historical materialism
might clarify the relationship. One way to approach the problem might be to
take a look at the evolution of hunter-gatherer societies into agricultural
societies. This is the key moment in social evolution I think, of more
theoretical signficance than evolution from fudealism to capitalism. For
with the advent of the agricultural revolution we see the rise of
civilisation, static populations, population growth etc. At this time we see
I believe also the rise of the "problem of order" that has grappled
political philosophy. So the "problem of order" cannot be defined, let alone
discussed without reference to political economy. That is what is is the
just means of producing, distributing and exchanging resources given a mode
of production?

Regards,
Marko.




     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---