[Critical-Realism] Trans/intrans

["Ruth Groff" <RGroff1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

The computer centre was apparently flooded, so lost e-mail, and today it may be down again.  So I may be off again until tomorrow.  Still can't write more fully, but I wanted to say that I think that I agree with how Brian hasa it worked out for the intransitive objects of non-natural sciences, though I would be inclined to wait until we read PON to think it through.  I myself would resist Louis' suggestion to think about it in different terms that the exact ones that RB uses, mostly just as an interpretive matter.  That is, I think it is important to stick, there, with what RB actually says.  Not because it's perfect, just because he states is directly, and so I don't see the need to translate.

The epistemic fallacy, which Brian mentioned, we will get to.  But for those who already know about it, I think it's important to register that it is not a code-term for "being an idealist rather than a materialist."  Rather, it is a short-hand for an objection to the idea that we cannot intelligibily ask straight-forwardly metaphysical questions - viz., that we may only ask questions about the structure of objects-as-we-would-experience them-if-we-did, and not about the structure of objects apart from any possible experience of them.  It's a complaint about Kant's distinction between critical and pre-critical philosophy, ultimately, in conjunction with his, Kant's, dismissal of what he, Kant, called transcendental realism.  (Which, in turn, is exactly what RB calls his position in RTS.)  There are other versions of the Kantian move, of course -- the entire linguistic turn, for example - and certainly cruder oes, but the main thing is to appreciate that "You're an idealist" and "You're buying into the epistemic fallacy" are not the same charge.

Anyway I'm sorry that I keep sounding like a broken record about staying focused on the text that is in front of us.  It really isn't that I think that we should stay there forever, just that we should read it as precisely as possible, in its own limited but nonetheless valuable terms, before doing anything else to it.

I gotta go -- I still wanted to say a couple of things on Dave's post, though. 

r.

   

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