Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:05:43 +0000
Subject: Re: BHA: sceintific realism, transcdental realism and respose to
David,
Yes - the predictability statement does of course work - but do you as a
'realist' accept that 'science is a realism' in which case the more
predictable the science the more adequate it is... In which case in
Kuhn's terms where established scientific knowledge is organized in a
paradigm, this being a set of expectations and assumptions that work
whilst they are adequate to the carrying out of normal problem solving
activity; this has no necessary relation to truth and indeed could be
thought of as deeply unrelated to 'truth' and the 'real' - how then can
this be considered 'a realism' - given the actuality of scientific
practice. [Rather consider 'scientific realism' as ideology and then
think to use simple examples - 'eugenics' which has less relationship
to 'truth' than creationism] (laughs...).
I would not personally claim to be a 'realist' in matters related to the
philosophy of science and scientific realism, rather that given that I
have established that I would argue that what 'science' exists is an
ideological frame that people should not confuse with a relationship to
the real.
I differ in my understanding of why the Marxist example works - is it
not because it is representative of the 'Truth' about the social system
we exist in and not because of the unprovable adequacy of the theory
? (After all it is only during the past few years that Marxism has
begun to recover from the effects of the neo-liberal
counter-reformation... and for most of the past two and half decades the
consensus would have been that there was no alternative to the
Capitalist liberal democracies)
I am not arguing for postmodern relativism - rather the opposite in fact...
regards
steve
Bailey,DJ (pgr) wrote:
>Dear Steve,
>
>I accept that our knowledge statements are not going to provide total predictability, but couldn't you argue that the more predictable they are the more adequate they are.
>
>To go back to your example - we can understand contemporary capitalist society as a totality of social relations (and relations with nature); but we can achieve greater adequacy if we understand those relations to imply a tendency towards a total commodification of human activity, towards concentration and centralisation of power, and towards the degradation of the very resource (labour power) that is necessary for those relations to exist; we can achieve greater adequacy still if we can identify means through which to change the nature of those same relations.
>
>Thus, the more (useful) predictability we achieve through our theoretical/factual statements the more adequacy we attain.
>
>I don't really understand what your alternative is? I think you are arguing that as long as we believe a factual statement to be adequate then it is adequate - but isn't that exactly the postmodern illusion that we, as realists, want to avoid? - there is a reality, and the better we understand it the better we can engage with it.
>
>regards,
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: steve.devos [mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk]
>Sent: 24 November 2003 20:06
>To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>Subject: Re: BHA: sceintific realism, transcdental realism and respose
>to James
>
>
>David
>
>I am maintaining that scientific realism, and indeed all 'realisms' are
>ideologically bound, that only in the last instance which perhaps will
>never arrive, can a theory be said to be addressing the 'real', which
>remains fundamentally ungraspable. Given that science will not and
>cannot produce a 'theory of everything' as scientific realists have
>been claiming is a realitistic goal in recent decades - I think I
>am on safe ground in preferring my email_rough_draft_proposition. If I
>accept your proposition how do I/we reengage and refute with the realist
>proposition that science is about what really is. This is an issue
>because the below does not seem to refute the scientific realist
>claim... rather it might be said to accept 'that they have simply not
>reached there yet'
>
>I'm not sure that the same critical thought should be applied to
>philosophy and social theory but I suspect that it might - for example
>to produce a bit of Marxist theory - The act of critique is the
>incesssnt labour of consciousness against it's own 'religious'
>representations in this given historically determined society.
>Capitalism is the determinate form of the social processes of production
>and reproduction in the frame of the specific socio-economic
>relations. Consequently then if thought of through its economic
>structure society is constituted by the totality of relations of
>social agencies and agents with one another and with nature. Whilst
>this appears to work within my proposal it cannot do so within yours -
>because the statement (which i believe to be true (even 'Truth'))
>contains a not so hidden infinity (an infinite number of relations) and
>can never be completely proven, and cannot therfore produce a
>predictable result - in other words it may be empirically adequate but
>it cannot be said to be provable.
>
>(i've been working all day and I'm cursed by the thought that I can
>think nothing propoerly... ah well)
>
>regards
>steve
>
>
>Bailey,DJ (pgr) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Dear sdv,
>>
>>rather than arguing that adequacy is basically that which we believe to be adequate; couldn't we rather argue that an adequate theory is one which guides our actions in a way that enables our aims to be more fully realised (than they would have been had we used preceding theories to guide that action). In other words, adequacy refers to the predictability with which we can engage with reality and enables us to use that predictability to achieve things we couldn't have done had that predictability not been acquired.
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>David
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: steve.devos [mailto:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk]
>>Sent: 22 November 2003 18:48
>>To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>Subject: Re: BHA: sceintific realism, transcdental realism and respose
>>to James
>>
>>
>>Howard
>>
>>Richard Dawkins on a radio programme argued that science was a realism
>>because 'we' know that an aeroplane will stay up in the sky whilst it's
>>machinary was functioning correctly. However this is a matter of
>>engineering practice - at my last count there are five different
>>scientific theories of why a plane can fly. All five theories are in
>>contradicition and none can be said to be adequate... This is actually
>>a trivial example (as the planes fly and are all quite horrible to be
>>in) unless you are arguing that science is a realism. In which case
>>there is a flaw in the argument - the naive version of realism argues
>>that science gives us a true picture of the world, faithful in its
>>details and that the entities science postulates as existing do really
>>exist. In other words the advances and discoveries that science makes
>>actually exist. (The naivity of the statement is to propose or accept
>>some notion that today's theories are correct and that is not the
>>intent.) In reality we can be sure that majority of the entities do not
>>exist and that the scientific theories inadequately define both the
>>entities and discoveries. Anyway the naive version has the right basic
>>feel to it: because it suggest two issues, that scientific realism
>>characterises a scientific theory as a story about what there really is,
>>and secondly that science is an enterprise of discovery rather than one
>>of invention. As such then to answer your question (assuming it is the
>>right question) I'd suggest that science should aim to give us a theory
>>that is empirically adequate, and that the acceptance of a theory as
>>adequate merely invoves a belief that it is empirically adequate.
>>
>>(sorry that sounds so dreadfully empiricist....)
>>
>>Does this answer the question as you pose it and what is your own answer
>>to your question ?
>>
>>regards
>>sdv
>>
>>Howard Engelskirchen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Steve,
>>>
>>>In terms of "adequately represent the 'real'" what would be criteria for
>>>adequacy?
>>>
>>>Howard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
>>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>>>Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 6:39 AM
>>>Subject: Re: BHA: sceintific realism, transcdental realism and respose to
>>>James
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>James/All
>>>>I have no desire or even interest in defending Popper from charges that
>>>>as a social-democrat he was broadly in favor of liberalism and
>>>>social-democracy and proposed these ideological positions as preferable
>>>>to Western Marxism, Eastern Marxisms and and of course Stalinism. These
>>>>are givens consequently as a result your response is missing the point.
>>>>I also notice that his argument that Scientists must be more responsible
>>>>and accountable for their decisions about what they research is ignored.
>>>>What is interesting with Popper is whether his understanding of
>>>>knowledge, science and the idea of testability gives us a better set of
>>>>tools than the dominant understandings of scientific knowledge generation.
>>>>
>>>>To get to the more interesting discussion that is possible about science
>>>>and knowledge - It is worth noting that in the 1979 book 'The
>>>>Possibility of Naturalism' Bhaskar spends a great deal of time
>>>>critiquing Popper but next to no time critiquing Kuhn, who by this time
>>>>had arguably become the most important philosopher of science. Why did
>>>>Bhaskar, in his 'Transcendental Realism' arguments and proposal miss the
>>>>important target ? Even by 1979 it was obvious, to the lay person that
>>>>Kuhn was by far the most most important figure in the philosophy of
>>>>science and that a realist must address Kuhn's neo-conventionalist
>>>>approach to knowledge generation. I would argue for instance that
>>>>Lyotard's classic text The Postmodern Condition could not have been
>>>>written without the underpinning that Kuhn's Structure of Scientific
>>>>Revolutions provides. It's not until much later (I think around 1989/90)
>>>>that Bhaskar lumps together Kuhn and Popper as 'super-idealists' and
>>>>seems to smooth out all the differences to generate what appears to be a
>>>>'target' against which CR can be generated. Perhaps the underlying
>>>>question that is worrying me is whether a 'scientific realism' and thus
>>>>a 'transcendtal realism' is both possible and acceptable given that
>>>>within the sciences it is clear that scientific knowledge is socially
>>>>constructed out of competing theories in ways which practically
>>>>guarantee that the dominant theory will not adequately represent how
>>>>things work. How then can we justify the argument that 'science is a
>>>>realism' (which is how it was originally presented to me) when it can
>>>>never adequately represent the 'real'.
>>>>
>>>>A simple example - the dominant theories of genetics state that each
>>>>individual human subject has a single DNA structure, it can be changed
>>>>but on the whole it is singular - this is not true nor is it even an
>>>>adequate phantasy of the complexities of DNA/RNA in 'life'. To clarify
>>>>it is known that human subjects can exist with multiple DNA structures,
>>>>the implications of which are multiple but two immediately spring to the
>>>>forground: 1) the faith placed in DNA as a means of recognising and
>>>>managing a single human subject is misplaced and 2) The claims that DNA
>>>>has been realistically represented or even understood are false.
>>>>
>>>>It does however support Dawkins much abused and misunderstood view that
>>>>"living beings are the means for the reproduction of DNA..." (laughs).
>>>>
>>>>regards
>>>>steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>James Daly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>"a social-democrat like Popper could hardly be expected to agree with
>>>>>Marx and Hegel" -- in fact they were prepared to annihilate the planet
>>>>>to to defend capitalism and save the world from communism. Perhaps he
>>>>>should have called for social democrats "to adopt a version of the
>>>>>Hippocratic Oath to restrain their propensity for harm."
>>>>>
>>>>>One example of Popper's dishonest "scholarship" is his misquoting Marx
>>>>>on a crucial issue as saying he wished to discover the "laws of
>>>>>society", whereas Marx said "the laws of modern society", i.e.
>>>>>capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>One can be a Cold Warrior without being paid for it, but acquiring the
>>>>>status of a Cold War manual certainly helps a book's sales, as it did
>>>>>Isaiah Berlin's.
>>>>>
>>>>>" '... to make science game-like and democratic as possible...' ".
>>>>>Science is not game like or democratic: games theory is just bourgeois
>>>>>ideology; "democracy" is capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Popper's version of science is essentially dialectical...". Popper
>>>>>was always ferociously anti-dialectical, and his denial of being a
>>>>>positivist turned mainly on the philosophically minor grounds of being
>>>>>a falsificationist instead of a verificationist, though in addition he
>>>>>also implausibly said metaphysical statements could become testable
>>>>>hypotheses.
>>>>>
>>>>>"... pitting one hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed
>>>>>issue. This goes back to Athens, the model being Socrates model of
>>>>>questioning, constructed in the 18th/19th [this should presumably be
>>>>>12th/13th] centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
>>>>>disputation' ". This is a frequently repeated but unconvincing
>>>>>ontogenesis of dialectic, which I think began with Plato's Parmenidean
>>>>>and Heraclides inheritance, and his practice of hierarchical
>>>>>classification.
>>>>>
>>>>>All the best
>>>>>
>>>>>James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
>>>>>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:36 AM
>>>>>Subject: Re: BHA: Re: Re: Primacy of practice, sophistry, and other
>>>>>fun stuff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mervyn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Within the philosophy of science perhaps the biggest argument of the
>>>>>>century is between Kuhn notable 'The structure of`scientific
>>>>>>revolutions' and Popper - like most people on the left I also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>assumed
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>that the below rationale was broadly correct - Fuller has done a
>>>>>>remarkably good job of throwing this presumption into question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not concerned to defend Popper regarding the Open Society or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Poverty of Historicism, after all a social-democrat like Popper
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>could
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>hardly be expected to agree with Marx and Hegel, rather the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>interest I
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>have is in Fuller's attempt to recover the philosophy of 'science'
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>'knowledge' from the predominance of the relativist Kuhn's paradigm
>>>>>>shifts, 'where knowledge is adequate to its objects'. The argument
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>goes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>that Popper '...took seriously both that science aspires to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>universal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>knowledge and that scientists - our representatives in this project
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>are
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>inherently flawed and biased agents. The result was to make science
>>>>>>game-like and democratic as possible...' But to clarify this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Popper's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>version of science is essentially dialectical pitting one
>>>>>>hypothesis/theory against another over a disputed issue. This goes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>back
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>to Athens, the model being Socrates model of questioning,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>constructed in
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the 18th/19th centuries as the 'academic practice of scholarly
>>>>>>disputation', from this derives the German dialectical tradition and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>course Hegel and Marx. An example of this dispute in a non-science
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>area
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>is the Popper/Adorno dispute over positivism which when looked at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>shows
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>perhaps rather typically that they are remarkably similar... both
>>>>>>anti-positivists, both dialectical thinkers, one a marxist the other
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>social-democratic liberal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A single issue it seems to me throws the outright rejection into
>>>>>>question: "At the height of the Vietnam War, Karl Popper called for
>>>>>>scientists to adopt a version of the Hippocratic Oath to restrain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>their
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>propensity for harm."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>regards
>>>>>>sdv
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't know about Kuhn, but anybody of intellectual integrity with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>reasonable familiarity with Hegel and Marx who reads The Open
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Society
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>and its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism could scarcely doubt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Popper was a cold war warrior. He is not only sly, he is dishonest,
>>>>>>>deliberately suppressing key words and omitting context in quotes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>suit his cold warrior distortions and travesties. His
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>characteristic
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>method is to set up a scarecrow and demolish it as if it were the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>real
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>thing. To spring to his defence on this issue in the current
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>context can
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>only mean to defend the totalitarian commercialism (Collier) that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Popper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>himself promoted and which is now being imposed on the world by all
>>>>>>>force necessary. (The very skies over London have been emptied for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>god of totalitarian commercialism to arrive as I type this...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mervyn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fifties cold warrior labelling of Popper has been challenged
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>in very
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>interesting ways by Steve Fuller just recently in his book Kuhn vs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>Popper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As Fuller points out it is Kuhn who is in the pay of the coldwar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>warriors...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(this is not to disagree or comment on the thrust of the below -
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>merely to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>spring to the defence of popper...)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>regards
>>>>>>>>sdv
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hi Carroll
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your punchline was strong -- that the purpose of reading Plato's
>>>>>>>>>Republic was to understand The Enemy. But, only one? Why is his
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>name
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>on Lenin's tomb? Your approach calls to mind the Fifties cold
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>warrior
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sir Karl Popper's *Open Society and Its Enemies*, after which
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>George
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Soros named his foundation. Slyly, Sir Karl manages to suggest
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Plato's target is workers who must be kept in their place,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>whereas his
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>real target (see the Gorgias) is the unscrupulous Nietzschean
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>rich who
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>want to exploit and rule.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It is nearly always forgotten that the society of Plato's first
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>choice
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>is a communist one, and that the rest of the argument is about a
>>>>>>>>>second-best society. And even the second-best society is not a
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>class
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>society in Marx's sense, in that the philosopher rulers do not
>>>>>>>>>appropriate the surplus, but live a frugal life.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I suppose the jury is out on whether Plato meant by "gennaion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>pseudos"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Big or Noble Lie, or both, but the myth of noble and base metals
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>in the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>soul is an answer to the problem of legitimising the rule of
>>>>>>>>>reason, and defending it against the power of wealth. Lenin had
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>same problem. It's quite a problem!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>James
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
>>>>>>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>>>>>>multipart/alternative
>>>>>>text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>>>>>text/html
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
>>>>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>>>>
>>>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>>>>multipart/alternative
>>>>text/plain (text body -- kept)
>>>>text/html
>>>>---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
>>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>>
>>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>>
>>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>>multipart/alternative
>> text/plain (text body -- kept)
>> text/html
>>---
>>
>>
>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>>
>> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
>---
>
>
> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
> --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005