Re: [Critical-Realism] deon

["Mervyn Hartwig" <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tobin

Many thanks for this. I'll think about it. I mostly work at home without
online access to a large instiutional library and only the relevant shorter
dictionaries to go by. If I want to check out the big ones I have to traipse
off to the British Library, so it's great to have the input of someone with
the resources of Yale library at his fingertips.

I don't think you're right about "de-". It is of course Latin, but it's also
Greek (as indicated in my dictionary entry), with a somewhat different
connotation: "but, with opposing or adversative force".  My interpretation
draws on the fact that the "deont" in "deontology" (de- + ont + logos) is
formed from "de-" + "ont" (both Greek). These are the same roots (which come
together in the Greek "deon", so either plural or singular is OK) as for
"de-ont", so I don't understand why you think my interpretation has no
etymological foundation -- it seems to be because you think that the "de-"
in "de-ont" (but presumably not in "deontology") is Latin, which seems
unlikely. Bhaskar puts a hyphen between the "de-" and the "ont" pretty
obviously to highlight the contrast with "ont", probably drawing on the
oppositional force of "de-" in Greek. He doesn't use "a-" (also Greek
["not"] as well as Latin) I would hypothesise because "a-ont" lacks euphony
but also because he wants to retain the ethical connection. I'll ask him
about it if I get a chance one of these days.

I don't intend anything in Dictionary of CR to be "treated as fact". The
whole thing (the 2/3 I wrote at any rate) is of course my reading of
CR/Bhaskar. In the present case, though, I explicitly call attention to the
interpretative status of what I say, as you noted earlier.

Mervyn 


-----Original Message-----
From: critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:critical-realism-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tobin
Nellhaus
Sent: 08 December 2007 20:27
To: Continuation of the Spoon Bhaskar List
Subject: Re: [Critical-Realism] deon

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

__________ NOD32 2711 (20071207) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com



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