Re: [Critical-Realism] deon

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mervyn--

Thanks you for this note, and I'm glad you considered the issue further.  My
other main point concerns the strength of the connection you want to make
between de-ont and deon, and likewise between de-ontology and deontology.
While I'll agree that the association is suggestive, and may have value at
that level, I don't think it can be treated as a fact.

More on that in a sec.  First, however, I want to ask about a puzzling
statement in your last post on the issue:

>                             I
> don't agree with your implication that putting a hyphen in "deont" somehow
> disconnects it from its Greek root.

My question is whether you meant "roots," rather than "root." "Deont" of
course has two roots, "de-" and "ont."  Putting a hyphen in there makes
complete sense, and I did not object to it.  But if you actually meant
"root," then you would apparently be directly connecting "de-ont" to "deon," 
which I understood to be the thrust of your argument throughout.  Be that as 
it may, the connection hinges on the wordplay between "de-ontology" and 
"deontology," a wordplay which does not actually have an etymological 
foundation (whatever other foundation it might have).

Frankly I'm not sure "de-" was the best choice of privative in the first
place, since it generally means undoing (as in decommission, deconstruct,
defrost, etc; literally, "de-" means "away" or "apart") rather than lack,
for which the more appropriate prefix would be "a-" or ("an-"), which means
"not" or "without."  So in a sense, using "de-" makes presence primary.

Finally, "de-ontology" is what's sometimes called a bastard term, since
"ont" is Greek whereas "de-" is Latin.  Obviously that puts still further
distance between "de-ontology" and "deontology."  Any association between
the two can only be made through a pun, and cannot be treated as based on
etymological facts.  Of course, as nearly everyone on this list surely knows
by now, I'm all in favor of puns, and they can indeed be illuminating
(either seriously or amusingly) -- but they do have their epistemological
limitations.

Sorry everyone for dwelling on this matter further, but since the argument 
stemmed from a discussion of RB's writing, I think it's important to be 
clear about what (and how) some of his terms mean.

Tobin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List'"
<critical-realism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 08 December 2007 5:53 AM
Subject: [Critical-Realism] deon


> Hi Tobin
>
> On further reflection, I take your point re 'reduction' and in the next
> edition (if there is such) will talk about 'two meanings' of the Greek
> word
> deon instead of 'the double meaning'.
>
> Thanks for calling my attention to this.
>
> 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