Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

[Mark Methven <markmeth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,

A slight oversight, "the patron Saint of
> Soctland" only for catholics.  And as long as the
discussion is concerned with "in spirit", I don't
doubt that GKC has met William Wallace or some modern
counterpart, and that the former's head is resting on
a pike somewhere...of course, in spirit.

M
--- Tim Murphy <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Oh dear, G K Chesterton again :(
> 
> Here he is (see below) at his paternalistic and
> supercilious best, with a
> little thought for the day on the feast of Saint
> Andrew (the patron Saint of
> Soctland). 
> 
> Forget about the Empire, the highland clearances,
> the administrative
> famines, the death squads and enforced migrations
> (ethnic cleansings) in
> Ireland and in Scotland. Forget that a significant
> element of Scotland's
> elites colluded with the English and forget the
> Ulster plantation and
> Cromwell and everything else, it's all about what we
> have done or not done
> "in spirit".
> 
> See how he is "quite certain" about things and how
> he says "Scotch" by which
> he means the Victorian pastiche of Scottish culture
> that served the local
> elites and the English as an ethnic signifier to
> demarcate the racial and
> ethnic hierarchy in the British Empire. See how it
> is "we" (The English) who
> are the protagonists here. It is all about "our"
> failure and "our" success.
> 
> Vacuous waffle... A sort of valium for the
> conscience of the christian
> gentleman.
> 
> ---
> 
> ST. ANDREW'S DAY
> 
> I AM quite certain that Scotland is a nation; I am
> quite certain that
> nationality is the key of Scotland; I am quite
> certain that all our success
> with Scotland has been due to the fact that we have
> in spirit treated it as
> a nation. I am quite certain that Ireland is a
> nation. I am quite certain
> that nationality is the key of Ireland I am quite
> certain that all our
> failure in Ireland arose from the fact that we would
> not in spirit treat it
> as a nation. It would be difficult to find, even
> among the innumerable
> examples that exist, a stronger example of the
> immensely superior importance
> of sentiment, to what is called practicality, than
> this case of the two
> sister nations. It is not that we have encouraged a
> Scotchman to be rich; it
> is not that we have encouraged a Scotchman to be
> active; it is not that we
> have encouraged a Scotchman to be free. It is that
> we have quite definitely
> encouraged a Scotchman to be Scotch.
> 
> G K Chesterton
> 
> =======
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Dave
> Taylor
> Sent: 20 June 2007 01:52
> To: 'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11
> 
> >I view the extent of our knowledge as a tiny dot in
> the midst of a vast 
> >if
> not infinite universe of our utter ignorance. [So
> viewing knowledge as] the
> necessary background to error is triumphalist.
> 
> A great argument, Tobin.  As I'm quoting Chesterton
> tonight, he's the only
> other person I've seen make it: in his own way of
> course.  "There are an
> infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at
> which one stands".
> 
> Best
> 
> Dave
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Tobin
> Nellhaus
> Sent: 20 June 2007 00:28
> To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11
> 
> Hi Louis--
> 
> >              I doubt that Tobin intended to
> express the optimism of 
> > such a guarantee, but I thought others might read
> it that way.
> 
> Exactly.  I don't see error as *necessarily* leading
> to knowledge or truth
> at all, as my examples of "That particular flame was
> being mean" and my
> tongue in cheek comment about dating both suggest. 
> Mostly error succeeds
> error succeeds error -- the production of knowledge
> takes a hell of a lot of
> work.  Likewise, people certainly do commit errors
> in orther to cover up
> other errors (althoguh that's at a sociological
> level that isn't my
> immediate subject).  For the most part, I view the
> extent of our knowledge
> as a tiny dot in the midst of a vast if not infinite
> universe of our utter
> ignorance.  So it seems to me that the shoe in fact
> is on the other foot: 
> the idea that *knowledge* (not simply hypotheses,
> beliefs or intentions) is 
> 
> Tobin
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Louis Irwin" <louisirwin9@xxxxxxx>
> To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'" 
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11
> 
> 
> > Tobin wrote: "I for one wouldn't say that all
> hypotheses and beliefs 
> > can be categorized as knowledge, but it really
> doesn't matter for my 
> > specific argument, which is *strictly* that error
> can only occur if 
> > there's a real world that exists independently of
> our minds, which 
> > gives us realism and off we go.  It doesn't matter
> whether there's 
> > knowledge of any sort first: all that matters for
> my particular 
> > argument is that error is possible.  If one admits
> that it is, then 
> > the ontological argument follows."
> >
> > The very concept of making an error is incoherent
> except in relation 
> > to a concept of getting things right.  That's a
> standard response in 
> > philosophy to a skeptic who claims that everything
> we believe is in 
> > error.  But if we (perhaps only some, not all)
> were brains in vats 
> > [sorry for not rehearsing this - think "The
> Matrix"] with a concept of 
> > error (and even a thorough understanding of CR),
> then indeed our 
> > concept of error would presuppose a concept of an
> external world, in 
> > the way Tobin suggests.  Moreover, there would be
> an external world 
> > (the vats, etc.), so realism would be true - but
> that would be rather 
> > cold comfort, at least for those brains in vats,
> since the real world 
> > would be quite different from what they believed
> about it.
> > And their "beliefs about the real world" would not
> even count as 
> > beliefs ABOUT the real world.
> >
> > Note that I am NOT suggesting that such a
> possibility would undermine 
> > the veracity of our beliefs - that would be a
> fallacious argument in 
> > favor of skepticism, but I am not making that
> argument.  I am simply 
> > claiming that a concept of error does not
> guarantee that the inferred 
> > reality accords with our beliefs about reality.  I
> doubt that Tobin 
> > intended to express the optimism of such a
> guarantee, but I thought 
> > others might read it that way.
> 
=== message truncated ===


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