Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn--

Sorry, the way I phrased it wasn't quite clear.  I wasn't referring to what 
might be passing through the infant's consciousness.  What I had in mind was 
your apparent statement that what's passing through her mind "comprises 
genuine knowledge," in this case the knowledge she exists.  In other words, 
I don't mean that she herself is thinking "cogito ergo sum," but rather that 
your outside judgment -- that her thinking "I'm here!" (or however you want 
to say it) contains a true statement about herself -- appears to rely on the 
cogito.  That would contradict your statement below, that the cogito doesn't 
show there's an indubitable "I" (which is correct).  So it's unclear what 
can be identified as genuine knowledge in her thinking.

Tobin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List" 
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11


>
> Hi Tobin
>
> I don't think it is the same. The infant 'just "thinks"' (that she alone
> exists), she doesn't go 'I think, therefore I exist'. In fact this is in
> line with one of the standard criticisms of the cogito: it doesn't show 
> that
> "I" indubitably exist, it just shows that thinking is occurring. The 
> infant
> of course quickly discovers that there is a world beyond herself.
>
> Mervyn
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11
>
>
>> Mervyn--
>>
>>> One can readily suggest in turn that the infant's whatever that she 
>>> alone
>>> exists comprises genuine knowledge (she exists) and error (she's not
>>> alone).
>>
>> Just two questions.  Are you aware that this says, "I think, therefore I
>> am"?  Second, do you believe that this Cartesian thesis is correct?
>>
>> Tobin
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List"
>> <critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] rts2-11
>>
>>
>>> Hi Tobin, Jan
>>>
>>> One can readily suggest in turn that the infant's whatever that she 
>>> alone
>>> exists comprises genuine knowledge (she exists) and error (she's not
>>> alone).
>>> On the basis of non-error + error, but not of error alone, she makes
>>> further
>>> real and erroneous discoveries...
>>>
>>> I accept btw Archer's stuff on the primacy of practice, i.e. I'm not
>>> saying
>>> that knowledge derived from socialisation necessarily plays any role
>>> here.
>>> As you know, Archer theorises the emergence of personal emergent powers
>>> on
>>> that basis, chief of which is self-consciousness (reflexivity), personal
>>> identity and then social identity. I'm not sure, Jan, that knowledge is
>>> one
>>> of these ('an ability'); I see it rather as an outcome of other 
>>> abilities
>>> deployed in the world.
>>>
>>> Mervyn
>>>
>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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