Re: [Critical-Realism] deon (the real connection is praxis)

["Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Mervyn--

> This suggests that you've completely missed the main point. I'm obviously
> not claiming that there's an etymological connection between "absence" and
> "deon".

Yes, obviously -- you were asserting an etymological connection between
"de-ontology" and "deontology."  The word "absence" never got into it.  If
you've now resiled from the etymological argument, then that's one problem
down.

>                                    if Bhaskar's got
> his ethics right you would expect to find constraint associated with need
> in
> actual geo-historical forms of life. I only keep repeating it because you
> haven't understood.

If the brunt of your argument (either originally or at least now) is that
you expect to find constraint associated with need in various languages due
to their connection in praxis, then your focus on the Greek "deon" and a
possible etymological connection to "de-ont" sent the entire discussion down
the wrong path: rather than concentrate on "deon" and wrestle with its
etymology, it would have made much more sense for you to poll the list about
whether anyone is aware of a similar semantic connection in other languages,
not just the one.  That's the proof of the pudding for the proposal you
offer above, not the side issue that you placed center stage.  As I've
argued, even the case for "deon" is a bit stretched.  Off hand I can't think
of a word in ordinary English that has this set of meanings, but maybe
someone can come up with one.  It is essential that the word be part of
everyday language and not recherché, otherwise the evidence that you would
need would be very strained.  ("Absence" obviously doesn't count, since the
compass of the term was specifically developed for RB's argument: in
ordinary language, the word doesn't have these meanings.)  Others may have
suggestions, however, whether for English or another tongue.

If it turns out that few languages have a word that combines the two
concepts, Bhaskar's theory would not in the least be harmed.  All that you'd
learn is that philosophical and scientific analyses are not necessarily
reflected in ordinary language -- which is hardly unusual.  So I don't 
believe the dire consequences that you do:

> if there's no continuity between forms of life, this intepretation would 
> be
> in big trouble (and so would the whole Bhaskarian system)

Your analysis of how CR might be reflected in ordinary language would be in 
trouble, but "the whole Bhaskarian system"?  Very unlikely.

T.

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus@xxxxxxxx
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce



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