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 m
Phil Walden
*
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 reali
Phil Walden
Reply to CB below at the end:
PW: Bhaskar defines the epistemic fallacy as the analysis or definition of
statements about being in terms of statements about our knowledge (of
being).
CB; Sort of like a Kantian fallacy of losing being in epistemology.
How do you know you k
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 mo
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-que
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-Marx
