critical-realism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89
- To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89
- From: "J.A.Toynbee" <J.A.Toynbee@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:35:27 +0100
- Thread-index: AcewN8vwgelWM1MySY+LaujRc6tmLwAA2rr3
- Thread-topic: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89
Doesn't the clinching argument for the radical distinction between transitive and intransitive have to do with temporality? Sure there's constant movement between TD and ID, but in the past all knowledge is rendered intransitive, independent of any knowing by the passage of time.
Jason
________________________________
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Brian Dick
Sent: Sat 16/06/2007 18:00
To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89
Hi all,
I think that Tobin makes an excellent point by showing that 'intransivity'
does not refer to 'permanence', but rather independence from knowers. This
becomes even more important when we turn to the human sciences, where the
objects of the intransitive dimension are even more fleeting than those of
the natural sciences. Of course, equating the objects of the ID with
permanence is still problematic in the natural sciences (as with Tobin's
example of the muon), where we can point to the cosmic evolution of the
universe (e.g., laws of nature such as gravity or the strong force do not
even exist until after a series of 'symmetry breakings'), etc.
Furthermore, I think that the TD/ID may be relative in a certain sense.
That is, for example, when we conduct a sociology of knowledge where, what
were once objects of the TD (i.e., theories of society), now become objects
of the ID in terms of the purposes of the investigation, the antecendent
knowledge products of the sociology of knowledge becoming the new TD for the
purposes of the investigation.
Brian
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.
_______________________________________________
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
- Thread context:
- Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism and Bhaskar, (continued)
- Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism and Bhaskar,
Alex Clark Sat 16 Jun 2007, 15:40 GMT
- Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89,
Kitching, John W Sat 16 Jun 2007, 16:32 GMT
- Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89,
Mervyn Hartwig Sun 17 Jun 2007, 06:20 GMT
- Re: [Critical-Realism] Critical-Realism Digest, Vol 32, Issue 89,
Brian Dick Sat 16 Jun 2007, 16:50 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]