I had written: >The realist postulate is not about the content of what we know. All it says is that there is actually something "out there" that is a basis for our perceptions. The "god exists" postulate, on the other hand, is very specific about what exists. It is asserting much more.< Ricardo responds: >Jim also wants to have it both ways. On the one hand [1] the realist does not assume anything about the "content" of the world.; on the other, [2] the realist does know that there is something out there which we can perceive, which is the basis of our knowledge.< [1] Actually, the realist _does_ assume something about the "content" of "the world," i.e., that it is in some way related to our perceptions, being in some way the basis for our perceptions. (So if one actually perceives gods or goddesses, there's some reality behind that perception, even if it may be the consumption of LSD.) But when I wrote about this (as seen in the selection that Ricardo himself quotes, which was repeated above), the referent of the word "content" was not "the world" (objective reality) as Ricardo asserts, but instead "what we know" (subjective perceptions). This blatant misinterpretation just confuses matters. [2] And the realist does not "know" that "there is something out there ... which is the basis of our knowledge." As I said before, the realist _postulates_ (i.e., assumes rather than knows) that there is something out there which is the basis of our knowledge. We perceive something. The realist assumes that this perception in some way reflects the external world, objective reality. So I am not "having it both ways." Rather, Ricardo is interpreting what I said in a way that promotes the appearance of contradiction (though perhaps this is not his goal). Ricardo continues: > Clearly, Jim's position is necessarily metaphysical in that it assumes knowledge of something out there, which he says cannot be proven but is none the less the ground of knowledge. So, what we do no[t] know is the basis of what we know! < I did not assume knowledge of what's actually out there. Ricardo may remember that I invoke the well-known blind folk/elephant metaphor, which explicitly says that the blind don't _know_ what the elephant is. Along with ontological realism I advocate epistemological skepticism. Now am putting forth a "necessarily metaphysical" position? It depends on what's meant by "metaphysical." And whether or not that's bad and to be avoided (as suggested by Ricardo's phrasing) depends on the definition of the word. My _Webster's New World Dictionary_ has a few definitions of metaphysics: "1. the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles and seeks to explain the nature of being or reality (ontology) and the origin and structure of the world (cosmology): it is closely associated with the study of the nature of knowledge (epistemology)." I'm not concerned here with cosmology, but I think that ontology and epistemology deserve to be discussed. If Ricardo rejects this kind of metaphysics, he seems to be saying that we shouldn't even be discussing ontology or epistemology. Well, I never asked him to participate in the discussion. "2. speculative philosophy in general." I, for one, see nothing wrong with speculative philosophy as long as we note that it is speculative. Is this the kind of metaphysics that Ricardo rejects? "3. the theory or principles (of some branch of knowlege)." I'm no positivist, so I see nothing wrong with examining questions in greater depth than the usual. Is looking into an issue in greater philosophical depth what Ricardo objects to? "4. popularly, any very subtle or difficult resoning." I don't think I'm guilty here. What I said wasn't deep or subtle. It was only difficult when Ricardo misinterpreted it. There's also the definition that Engels seems to use on occasion, i.e., metaphics deals with parts of the whole, violently abstracting them from the whole. I wasn't engaged in that kind of metaphysics. in pen-l solidarity (if pen-l really exists rather than being a product of my fevered imagination), Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
