RE: [Marxism-Thaxis] Roy Bhaskar
At 11:12 PM 1/18/2006 +, Phil Walden wrote: PW: Bhaskar defines the epistemic fallacy as the analysis or definition of statements about being in terms of statements about our knowledge (of being). For example, if somebody says that capitalism must give way to socialism because Hegelian-Marxism proves that it must, this would be committing the epistemic fallacy because that body of work is overarched by a greater reality which does not have to conform to the laws of Hegelian-Marxism. Of course Marx agreed with this point that Bhaskar is more explicitly making, as shown by Marx's comment (recently cited on this list by Ralph I think) that "I am not a Marxist" when Marx wanted to dissociate himself from people who were using his work like a universal key to history. This is the silliest 'example' of the epistemic fallacy I can think of, and I don't even think it's a correct example. The epistemic fallacy is exemplified by David Hume. It's basically the skeptical, relativist, subjective idealist position. Bhaskar has not demurred from the characterization of himself as a Marxist, and has even referred to himself as a Marxist. However, when he states his goal he does not say "socialism", which he regards as hopelessly tainted by what he refers to as "actually existing socialism". That is, Bhaskar thinks that the idea of socialism has been irredeemably ruined by the horrific experience of Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc. When Bhaskar does state his goal the term he uses is "eudaimonia" which in the philosophy of Aristotle means universal human flourishing. OK, fine, actually existing socialism sounds bad, though, oddly, not as bad as communism for those of us who grew up in the Cold War. 'Eudaimonia' seems to indicate an existential state, but it can hardly be used to describe a social order. I think Bhaskar is a pretentious jackass. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
RE: [Marxism-Thaxis] Roy Bhaskar
Reply to CB below at the end: For Marxists, the importance of Bhaskar's distinction above is that it foregrounds the importance of ontology. In my view Marxism had got into a near-terminal crisis because the Trotskyist groups were focussing almost exclusively on trying to realise their beyond-question theory (i.e. working at the level of epistemology as an identity-theory) whereas what they needed to be doing was trying to cognize changes in the nature of world capitalism (i.e. working at the level of ontology).The groups were thus committing an example of what Bhaskar calls the "epistemic fallacy". ^ CB: Do you mind elaborating on this ? Now that you mention it, I recall the "epistemic fallacy" idea. Is Bhaskar for ending capitalism and building socialism ? PW: Bhaskar defines the epistemic fallacy as the analysis or definition of statements about being in terms of statements about our knowledge (of being). For example, if somebody says that capitalism must give way to socialism because Hegelian-Marxism proves that it must, this would be committing the epistemic fallacy because that body of work is overarched by a greater reality which does not have to conform to the laws of Hegelian-Marxism. Of course Marx agreed with this point that Bhaskar is more explicitly making, as shown by Marx's comment (recently cited on this list by Ralph I think) that "I am not a Marxist" when Marx wanted to dissociate himself from people who were using his work like a universal key to history. Bhaskar has not demurred from the characterization of himself as a Marxist, and has even referred to himself as a Marxist. However, when he states his goal he does not say "socialism", which he regards as hopelessly tainted by what he refers to as "actually existing socialism". That is, Bhaskar thinks that the idea of socialism has been irredeemably ruined by the horrific experience of Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, etc. When Bhaskar does state his goal the term he uses is "eudaimonia" which in the philosophy of Aristotle means universal human flourishing. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Roy Bhaskar
At 05:52 PM 1/18/2006 +, Phil Walden wrote: One important idea of Bhaskar's was about what he called the intransitive and transitive dimensions of reality. This was akin to Althusser's idea of the real object and the thought object, but Bhaskar's version is better in my view because it is more accurate. Althusser's version still gives too much weight to social construction rather than to nature. Maybe. "Transitive' and 'intransitive' are not bad as far as neologisms go, but I have my doubts as to whether most of his terminology is necessary, not to mention that it facilitates Bhaskar-cultism. I've found the term 'epistemic fallacy' to be very useful, though, but maybe there's some other term for it I don't know. For Marxists, the importance of Bhaskar's distinction above is that it foregrounds the importance of ontology. In my view Marxism had got into a near-terminal crisis because the Trotskyist groups were focussing almost exclusively on trying to realise their beyond-question theory (i.e. working at the level of epistemology as an identity-theory) whereas what they needed to be doing was trying to cognize changes in the nature of world capitalism (i.e. working at the level of ontology). The groups were thus committing an example of what Bhaskar calls the "epistemic fallacy". Phil Sharpe and I (in Britain) took some of Bhaskar's ideas into the Trotskyist milieu starting from about 1992 and got an uncomprehending response but it now appears that some of the Bhaskar did get taken up. I haven't the foggiest notion of what you're talking about, but I would be interested in learning more. Bhaskar rejects the appellation "materialist" because he sees the materialism of Lenin (M+EC) and Engels as being positivist in a reductive way, and as being distantly related to what he regards as the false ontology of Hume's regularity determinism (i.e. it is not sufficiently stratified). This, I think. is horseshit. Later dialectical materialism (post-1930) is referred to by Bhaskar as "objectivist processual empiricism" (see Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom, Verso 1993, or Plato Etc., Verso 1994). I don't know what this means, though I suppose I could translate this gobbledegook into more familiar conceptual terms. Those two books are very demanding (but rewarding!), but Bhaskar's more recent books are much more accessible. The books mark Bhaskar's dive into obscurantism. This business about dialectic as absence makes no sense to me except as a transition to mysticism. But I made a careful study of the unreadable PLATO ETC.: some of it is insightful and some pure BS. This type of writing, though, is inexcusable, and is good only for cult-building. Bhaskar has gone through a transcendental (and even mystical) phase but I am told that his latest work which he is starting to propagate is much more grounded in empirical research. For some years now Bhaskar has been working in Sweden at the same university where Goran Therborn, the noted social thinker and researcher, is based. I've lost track of these developments, but I was really disgusted to see how far Bhaskar-cultists would go to ingest the steaming turds Bhaskar laid on their plates as TDCR. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
