>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/00 02:31PM >>>
We've had this conversation before. One way of summarizing my take on this
is that "dialectical materialism" has some unfortunate baggage which can be
avoided by reconsidering the issues under a new rubric.
______________
CB: I find a lot of conversations repeat on e-mail lists. :>)
Of course, my take is that some of the new rubrics may not be able to get away from
dialectial materialism like they think they can, because objective reality doesn't
change because of different rubrics or approaches or terminologies. What some term
"unfortunate baggage" may be a necessary consequence of recognizing that there is
objective reality , struggling with objective reality as it really is, struggle ,
trial and error as inherent to a "scientific" in contrast with a utiopian approach,
etc.
______________
One source is Tony
Lawson's article on critical realism in volume I of Phil O'Hara's
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POLITICAL ECONOMY.
At 02:13 PM 8/3/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/03/00 11:33AM >>>In my interpretation,
> critical realism starts with the axiom that empirical
>reality exists independent of our perception of it. The rest of the
>epistemology is based on that. In many ways it's a critique of postmodern
>ultra-skepticism, in which any person's opinion about empirical reality is
>just as good as any others.
>
>_________
>
>CB: Is this different than the old notion that materialism starts from the
>axiom that there is objective reality ?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
