OPE-L
mailing list archive

Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]

Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: Hume



You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.


Hello Ajit,

If you are referring to Sraffa's book, then, of
course, Sraffa is not developing any causal theory
there.

In its typical form it's a constraint-based theory, in the sense that it defines a set of logically possible configurations of an economy given the assumption of reproduction and information regarding technical constraints between commodity types. I agree it is not a causal theory. The fact that mathematically it is expressed as solutions to a set of simultaneous equations (i.e, constraints on possible values of variables) is a sign of that.

But this isn't a good thing. It's a limitation.
Although this is not to deny that an initial
abstraction from change can be illuminating. So I
think there's no need to justify a constraint-based
theory by implying that philosophy tells us we
can't hope to do any better. We can and should build
dynamic, causal theories of the economy.

(As an aside, mathematical logic does admit of
causality, as computer science has shown, although I admit
this is an obscure point for those not trained in computer
science).

Hume's challenge on causation has never been answered.

There's been lots of answers to Hume, not least Kant and Hegel. A modern approach is Bhaskar's critical realism, in particular "A Realist Theory of Science". Related to Andrew's point: he holds that critical realism doesn't fully answer Hume either, and that to fully answer him requires a more forceful identity between thought and reality.

But really it is very silly to deny the reality of
causal change independent of our knowledge of it.
And Wittgenstein was regularly quite silly in his
reduction of ontology to epistemology, his empiricism
of language, and belief that philosophy was essentially
about analysing implicit common-sense theories.
Here I agree with Popper that philosophy (and reality)
is much more than that.


-Ian.

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]