Re: [Critical-Realism] Commonalities

["Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George,

You write:

Briefly, to take the three related schools that I've laid out--critical 
pragmatism (Peirce & Dewey), critical rationalism (Popper), critical realism

Commonalities:

a)  Post Humean metaphsics

I'd don't think that I would say this, exactly.

I think that what gets expressed as "focus on ontology" in relation to RB is better parsed as a 2-part move: (1) rejection of Kant's "critical" turn, i.e., affirmation of the intelligibility of asking straight-forwardly ontological questions; and (2) a rejection of mechanism as a metaphysics [yes, yes, notwithstanding the term "causal MECHANISM" :)], in favor of dispositional realism.  

I think you might lose the pragmatists at (1) and Popper at (2).

  
c)  Truth as a regulative ideal

I'd be very careful here.  You might mean "The idea of certain, permanent, true beliefs (i.e., "knowledge" as non-fallibilists define it)" as a regulative ideal.  Or you might mean that the concept "true," however each thinker defines it, in their view functions not as an attainable norm but rather than as a regulative ideal.  Or you might simply mean that they all define "true" in the same way (probably not, though, because they don't).  Or you might mean that they all think that there is such a thing as epistemic gain, as Taylor puts it, and that such gain is the purpose of inquiry.  I think that these positions line up very differently depending on what you're actually saying here, and that it's important to recognize that.    


I agree with you though that it is interesting to all the time be comparing and contrasting thinkers; it helps in trying to figure them out I think.

r.

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