RE: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8

[Mark Methven <markmeth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All interested parties and newcomers,

For those of you who are interested in the historical
context of the exchange of ideas that Ruth alluded to,
please refer to the exchanges on this listserve from
Mar.15, 2006 up to and including at least Apr.11,
2006.  There may be other isolated messages, but I
don't have the time to search at that level.

Warm regards,

Mark


--- Ruth Groff <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Mervyn, all,
> 
> "Truth-bearer" is just a general term in the field,
> though I agree that RB doesn't use it.  To say that
> things are truth-MAKERS, meanwhile, is to side
> w/people like Alston -- and in a general way with
> all contemporary proponents of the correspondence
> theory.  In fact, it is a way of defining
> contemporary variants of it.
> 
> But in Dialectic and Plato, Etc. RB makes it very
> clear that, whatever he thinks about truth-makers
> (without using the standard language),  alethic
> truth is a property that may be properly attributed
> to non-propositional "things."  We've had people on
> the list defend the view unapoligetically - at least
> one explicitly a Hegelian, as I recall.  I respect
> the defense; I just don't agree with it.  
> 
> Maybe RB has changed his mind about this, and now
> wants only to say, as all realists about truth do,
> that it is "things" that are truth-makers.  If so,
> that would be an important change.  Even the
> definition of the term that he gives in the glossary
> of one or both of those works would have to be
> revised.  In any case, I genuinely don't mean the
> stating of it to constitute a criticism of it.  It's
> not a joke position.
> 
> Warmly,
> Ruth
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> on behalf of Mervyn Hartwig
> Sent: Fri 16-Feb-07 7:29 AM
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism
> Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
>  
> Hi Ruth, Phil
> 
> >I would say that the thing for you to take very
> seriously about Bhaskar's 
> >approach, once he starts talking about truth after
> RTS, is the idea that 
> >things other than claims (I use the term loosely,
> to cover things ranging 
> >from sentences to propositions to theories) can be
> truth-bearers,
> 
> This is your idea, Ruth, not I  think Bhaskar's. He
> nowhere uses the concept 
> of 'truth-bearer' that I know of but in my view if
> you must use the language 
> of 'truth-bearer' and 'truth-maker', he is
> definitely saying that things are 
> truth-makers and not -bearers in relation to
> propositions.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mervyn
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 12:25 AM
> Subject: RE: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism
> Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
> 
> 
> Hi Phil,
> 
> I'll dig up the Habermas.  It's recent.  I was
> surprised by it, though 
> perhaps I shouldn't have been.  I think that he -
> and Putnam, too, from an 
> entirely different angle - has wanted from an ideal
> consensus theory (rather 
> than a straight-forwared consensus theory) what a
> correspondence theory 
> does, so in that sense it's not so startling.  But
> still, he's been an ideal 
> consensus type for a while.  Anyway I'll send you
> the reference.  (Don't 
> know if it's of interest, but I cleaned up that
> article a little when I 
> turned it into ch. 4 of the book.  You might want to
> look at that version. 
> It's close, but just a little sharper.  The Journal
> of Critical Realism did 
> a little review symposium between me and Caroline
> New and John Roberts, more 
> or less also on the issue, which might be of
> interest.)
> 
> I would say that the thing for you to take very
> seriously about Bhaskar's 
> approach, once he starts talking about truth after
> RTS, is the idea that 
> things other than claims (I use the term loosely, to
> cover things ranging 
> from sentences to propositions to theories) can be
> truth-bearers, in some 
> meaningful, non-metaphorical sense of the term. 
> It's not a position 
> original to RB - and I don't personally agree with
> it - but if you are 
> thinking about RB and truth I think you have to
> decide where you stand on 
> it.
> 
> Warmly,
> Ruth
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> on behalf of 
> pohanlon03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu 15-Feb-07 6:28 PM
> To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Critical-Realism] Re: Critical-Realism
> Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
> 
> Hi
> 
> thanks for your comments Ruth (and others). Dave -
> you probably know more
> about this than I do so I doubt I could inform you
> beyond your existing
> brief but would be happy to hear any thoughts on the
> matter. Ruth - yes
> that is the MacIntyre piece you are referring to and
> I thought it sat
> nicely with Bhaskar. Basically, I agreed with your
> views expressed in your
> piece "The Truth of the Matter" regarding the lack
> of a well-worked out
> theory of truth, at least in RTS, and the need for
> one. MY supervisor is
> often asking me what Bhaskar's notion of truth is
> and I thought that B.
> himself seems to equivocate on notions of
> 'correspondence' and 'coherence',
> while still at times seeming to imply or require
> them. And I think
> generally the whole thing needs to be worked out.
> I'm only first year phd
> and still just getting to grips with RTS so I'm not
> that advanced with
> this, but was aware of the deficiency for while he
> rejects correspondence
> and coherence he does not really say what goes in
> their place. The later
> work of course introduces alethic truth, but as you
> argue, is not adequate.
> So I was looking round for a theory of truth that
> would be consistent with
> my use of critical realism contra Habermas.
> 
> On Habermas, I was not aware of the move you note
> from consensus to
> (regulative) correspondence, but I think that is
> quite significant if you
> are right and would be grateful if you could inform
> me of the appropriate
> text/s.
> 
> Regards
> Phil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 15 2007,
> critical-realism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > Send Critical-Realism mailing list submissions to
> > critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide
> Web, visit
> >
>
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> > critical-realism-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > critical-realism-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Critical-Realism digest..."
> >
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Critical-Realism mailing list
> Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism
> 


_______________________________________________
Critical-Realism mailing list
Critical-Realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/critical-realism