Re: [Critical-Realism] Side note on clear writing and Bourdieu

[Karl Maton <matonianuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps, then, the question shouldn't be whether neologisms in the sense 
of ordinary language are present or not, but rather whether new concepts 
were required given the problem-situation and the state of the 
problem-field.  Could existing concepts have been used adequately or 
were new ones (whatever they end up being named) were required?  And, 
more interestingly from my point of view, whether the new ones 
integrated and subsumed the insights of past ideas or did they add a 
new, segmented approach? 

Or did I miss the point by eating too many posts on this topic too 
quickly in one sitting?  Was it more about whether Bhaskar's language is 
too opaque (thus the recent focus on neologisms)?  

(Back to reading a honours thesis late at night for me....)

Cheers
Karl

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