Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

In a sense I must disagree with Ruth as well as Phil: permanence isn't an 
issue in the TD/ID distinction *at all*.  Muons, for instance, exist for 
nanoseconds, but they are intransitive for all that.  People confuse 
"transitive" with "transient" (or "transitory").  They do not mean the same 
thing, or anything even *close*.

T.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89


Hi Phil,

I just wanted to reiterate what I said to Tobin.  I don't think that 
permanence is the most telling variable.  It's whether or not what is has 
form of its own.  This gets directly to the ontological AND epistemological 
issues under consideration by contemporary scientific essentialists and 
people doing powers-based metaphysics.  It is from those people that you get 
very serious philosophical thinking that advances the ontology of the 
position, thereby differentiating it further from various versions of 
post-Kantianism.  They all show up as not wanting to break with the 
assumption that whatever order there is, it's given externally.

r.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> 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