Re: [Critical-Realism] thoughts, ideas and action

["Dave Taylor" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Melanie

Without the book I'm just seeing what I'm seeing, but for me the key word is
'paradigm', i.e. this being taken as a model of what is usual, whereas in
this case thinking may just lead to more thinking, or to a decision not to
think about the topic, just as much as to action.  If you have been
following the fascinating discussion on "How can a de-ont exist ..." the
issue of causality being "polyvalent" is surely at the heart of this.

Best

Dave 

-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
m.mcdonald.10@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 08 December 2007 04:22
To: critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Critical-Realism] thoughts, ideas and action

Hey there, I have a small query. 

I am having a bit of trouble reconciling two different things that Bhaskar
has written about the relationship 
between thoughts, ideas, and action.

In The philosophy of meta-Reality Volume 1: creativity, love and freedom
(Vol. 1), Bhaskar writes about 
how "the paradigm of thinking leading to action is false" (footnote 18, page
82). I think the main point of 
this argument is that at some level of determinacy action must be
spontaneous and 'unthought', and in 
leading to this point he argues that 'the thought of the action is not the
cause of the action'. And yet in 
his article 'On the Ontological Status of Ideas', Bhaskar argues that ideas
are real because they are 
causally efficacious (1997 p.143). 

Let me try to illustrate my point. 

I can have the thought "I will write a sentence to illustrate my point",
which (from my perspective) actually
 causes me to write a sentence to illustrate my point. Of course, the actual
act of typing the sentence 
may be spontaneous and unthought, but without the initial thought or idea to
write it, I really don't think I 
would have written it. In this sense, my thought or idea was causally
efficacious, and yet in the 
philosophy of meta-Reality Bhaskar seems to be suggesting that thoughts do
not cause action. Can you 
see what I am getting at? How do I reconcile this? 

Perhaps there is a subtle difference between what Bhaskar refers to when he
speaks of 'thoughts' and 
the act of 'thinking', and what he refers to when he speaks of 'ideas'. I
seem to use the words 'thought' 
and 'idea' interchangeably, for example, "I had a thought" or "I had an
idea", in this respect, my referent 
for both 'thought' and 'idea' are the same. And yet, it appears that this
may be different for Bhaskar. 

Hmmm, any ideas or thoughts?

thanks,
Melanie

Melanie McDonald
PhD Candidate
School of Education
Southern Cross University
Lismore 2480 Australia
_______________________________________________
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