DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Naturalization of Roy Bhaskar's Early Realist Ontology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 This article has been published in 2005 in Journal of Critical Realism 4(1), 28-61. The Trouble with Trancendental Arguments: Towards a Naturalization of Roy Bhaskar’s Early Realist Ontology Tuukka Kaidesoja Abstract. This article analyzes and criticizes the transcendental arguments Roy Bhaskar uses to justify his transcendental realist ontology. They are compared to Kant’s in the Critique of Pure Reason and a detailed reconstruction of those formulated in A Realist Theory of Science is presented. It is argued that Bhaskar’s formulations contain certain ambiguities and are beset with other, more serious, problems. First, his descriptions of scientific practices (which form the premise of his transcendental arguments) are far more controversial than is presupposed in his arguments. Second, Bhaskar uses the Kantian concept of transcendental necessity in his transcendental arguments which inevitably connects them to certain Kantian doctrines that are inconsistent with his transcendental realist ontology. Some qualifications of his formulations Bhaskar made in his later writings are also considered and another possible interpretation of his transcendental arguments is presented from the point of view of these qualifications. On this interpretation, Bhaskar seeks to naturalize Kantian transcendental arguments by combining a posteriori premises with a priori philosophical reasoning. It is argued that this kind of naturalized version of transcendental arguments is also problematic. Therefore, it is concluded that Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments fail to justify his transcendental realist ontology. Nevertheless, it might be possible to justify at least some of Bhaskar’s ontological claims from the perspective of meta-philosophical naturalism. It is maintained that this requires naturalization not just of transcendental arguments but of the whole transcendental realist ontology. One possible form of naturalistic argument that might replace Bhaskar’s problematic transcendental arguments is sketched. It is, however, admitted that, desirable though the naturalization of Bhaskar’s early ontology may be, more work needs to be done to achieve this goal. Keywords: Bhaskar, meta-philosophy, naturalism, ontology, transcendental argument Introduction Bhaskar justifies his transcendental realist ontology in RTS1 by using transcendental arguments. He also deploys them in PN to derive his specific social ontology which is compatible with transcendental realist ontology. These ontological theories are important for Bhaskar, because his realist theories of the natural and human sciences presuppose the ontologies. Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments have been very influential in the critical realist tradition, where they are taken to provide a quite strong warrant for his ontologies.2 In this paper I argue that Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments are beset with problems in virtue of which they fail to justify the ontologies. I also point out that it might be possible to construct a naturalistic 1 I refer to Bhaskar’s books by the following abbreviations: PN (The Possibility of Naturalism, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1979); RR (Reclaiming Reality, London and New York: Verso); RTS (A Realist Theory of Science, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 2nd edition, 1979); SRHE (Scientific Realism & Human Emancipation, London and New York: Verso, 1989. 2 Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments are cited approvingly, for example, in Andrew Collier, Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy, London and New York: Verso, 1994; B. Danermark, M. Ekström, L. Jakobsen, & J.C. Karlsson, Explaining Society: Critical Realism in the Social Sciences, Routledge: London and New York, 2002; Jeffrey C. Isaac, ‘Realism and reality: some realistic reconsiderations’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 20, no. 1, 1990, pp. 1-31; Tony Lawson, Economics and Reality, London: Routledge, 1997. 2 argument to warrant at least some of the most important ontological claims Bhaskar formulates. I argue that this requires that the whole transcendental realist ontology be reinterpreted from the perspective of meta- philosophical naturalism. In order to show why Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments are problematic, it is necessary to relate them to Immanuel Kant’s transcendental philosophy, which is the source of the doctrine of transcendental arguments. I accordingly analyze Kant’s use of transcendental arguments in the Critique of Pure Reason. There they are tied tightly to the doctrine of transcendental idealism, hence can adequately be understood only in the framework of that doctrine. I also briefly compare Kant’s transcendental arguments to Bhaskar’s, then analyze the latter more thoroughly. I point out that Bhaskar’s manner of articulating transcendental arguments incorporates some ambiguities and argue that there are in addition serious problems in their conceptualization in RTS. First, he does not clearly distinguish scientific practices from their descriptions, hence seems to assume that his descriptions, which form the premises of his transcendental arguments, are unproblematic and that he is able to establish the truth of these descriptions without recourse to empirical analysis of the practices. I argue that, to the contrary, his descriptions of certain scientific practices are fallible and can be justified only by empirical analysis of such practices. I illustrate this point further by showing that his description of experimentation in science is controversial. Second, I point out that he assumes that he is able to justify a priori3 the claim that it is a necessary condition of the possibility of certain scientific practices (e.g. experimentation) that the ontological structure of the world contain certain features (e.g. structures and mechanisms which are ontologically independent of any patterns of events). I argue that Bhaskar’s transcendental argument requires that the concept of necessity in this claim should be interpreted in a Kantian way. I also provide textual evidence for this interpretation by citing his postscript to RTS and PN, where he explicitly uses the Kantian term ‘transcendental necessity’ in this context. I argue that this Kantian concept of necessity connects Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments to certain Kantian doctrines that are inconsistent with his transcendental realist ontology. I also point out that without the Kantian concept of transcendental necessity Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments break down. Therefore, I conclude that Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments in RTS are problematic and fail to justify his transcendental realist ontology. Bhaskar, however, offers some qualifications of his transcendental arguments in his later texts (e.g. in the postscript to RTS, and in PN and SRHE). I point out that there are serious terminological ambiguities in these qualifications, because he adopts Kantian terminology without clearly specifying what he means by it. I also present a modified interpretation of his transcendental arguments from the point of view of these qualifications. On this interpretation, he is trying to naturalize Kantian transcendental arguments by combining a posteriori premises with a priori philosophical reasoning. I argue that this kind of ‘naturalization of transcendental arguments’ is not tenable, because the concept of necessity is problematic in them too. I also point out that scientific practices are in principle always compatible with two or more incompatible ontological interpretations and it is not possible to demonstrate a priori that one of these interpretations is true and others false. Furthermore, I show that the attempt to naturalize transcendental arguments can be criticized from both the Kantian and the naturalistic perspective. My conclusion is that, notwithstanding the qualifications, Bhaskar’s transcendental arguments remain problematic. I then try to show that at least some of the doctrines of Bhaskar’s realist ontology can nonetheless be saved by naturalizing the whole transcendental realist ontology. By this I mean that it is possible to reinterpret and justify such an ontology from the perspective of meta-philosophical naturalism. I present some general claims of the programme of 3 By the term ‘a priori’ I mean (1) knowledge claims or propositions of which truth can be known independently of any experience and (2) arguments or justifications whose validity does not depend on experience. By the term ‘a posteriori’ I mean (1) knowledge claims or propositions of which truth cannot be known without recourse to experience and (2) arguments or justifications which validity depend on experience. 3 meta-philosophical naturalism. These include, for example, a denial of the possibility of a priori philosophical theorizing and foundationalist philosophical doctrines and an emphasis on the relationship between science and philosophy as continuous and on philosophical doctrines as fallible, just like scientific theories. I mention some critiques that have been directed against some forms of philosophical naturalism. Despite the critiques, I maintain that the programme of meta-philosophical naturalism can be applied fruitfully at least in the context of philosophical ontology (or metaphysics). Then I sketch the form of one possible naturalistic argument that can be developed to justify naturalized critical realist ontology. I try to show that these kinds of naturalistic arguments are more promising than Bhaskar’s problematic transcendental arguments. However, much more work remains to be done to naturalize
Recommended publications
  • Critical Realist Approaches to Global Learning: a Focus on Education for Sustainability’

    Critical Realist Approaches to Global Learning: a Focus on Education for Sustainability’

    Khazem, D. (2018) ‘Critical realist approaches to global learning: A focus on education for sustainability’. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 10 (2): 125–134. DOI https://doi.org/10.18546/IJDEGL.10.2.02 Critical realist approaches to global learning: A focus on education for sustainability Dima Khazem* – UCL Institute of Education, UK Abstract Critical realism offers a useful epistemology and ontology for conceptualizing theoretical and methodological considerations in global learning and may help to bridge the quantitative/qualitative divide that plagues social science. This article elaborates critical realist principles, concepts and methodologies to explain how they can be employed within global learning, with examples from education for sustainability. Keywords: ontological realism; epistemological relativism; judgemental rationality; education for sustainability; climate change Introduction At the ‘Research, evidence and policy learning for global education’ conference held in May 2017 in London, Professor Annette Scheunpflug, ‘a key figure in Europe in promoting the concept of global learning’ (Bourn, 2015: 72), spoke about the dilemmas of showing evidence and efficacy in recent educational policy discourse, and how the qualitative/quantitative divide that plagues social science affects research into global learning. As a member of the conference audience at the time, I suggested that critical realism, a meta-theory that I employ in my research, may offer a way forward for theoretical and methodological innovation within the field of global learning. Furthermore, critical realism, with its claim of methodological specificity, may help to mitigate the quantitative/qualitative dualism and bolster research evidence in global learning for policy consideration. This article proposes critical realist approaches to global learning and examines relevant theoretical and methodological issues with a specific focus on education for sustainability.
  • A Humean Analysis of Scientific Realism 1

    A Humean Analysis of Scientific Realism 1

    Published in Ensaios sobre Hume, Lívia Guimarães (org.), Belo Horizonte (Brazil), Segrac Editora, 2005b. Pp. 89-108. ____________________________________________________________________ A Humean analysis of scientific realism 1 SILVIO SENO CHIBENI Departamento de Filosofia, IFCH Universidade Estadual de Campinas Caixa Postal 6110 – 13083050, Campinas, SP, Brazil web-site: www.unicamp.br/~chibeni – e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: In their criticism of scientific realism, contemporary philosophers of science often assume that this position is incompatible with empiricism, the epistemological thesis according to which all factual knowledge is grounded on experience. Little attention is paid, however, to the roots of empiricism in modern philosophy. The present article aims to contribute to filling this gap, by examining the implications of Hume’s version of empiricism to the issue of scientific realism. It is shown, first, how scientific realism is negatively affected by Hume’s theories of ideas and causality. Secondly, the prospects of overcoming these difficulties by appealing to the method of hypotheses are examined, first through a survey of Hume’s own stand concerning hypotheses, and then by direct philosophical analysis. 1. Introduction In contemporary philosophy of science, scientific realism is commonly thought of as being challenged either by “constructivism” or by “empiricism” (see e.g. Boyd 1984). However, the use of the word ‘empiricism’ in this context is somewhat misleading. The term has originally been coined to designate an epistemological thesis concerning the problem of the sources of knowledge, paradigmatically defended by philosophers such as Locke and Hume. In this 1 Parts of this work were first presented in a conference given in the 3rd Encontro de Filosofia Analítica, held in Florianópolis, Brazil, in October 1997.
  • Quantum Logical Causality, Category Theory, and the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead

    Quantum Logical Causality, Category Theory, and the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead

    Quantum Logical Causality, Category Theory, and the Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead Connecting Zafiris’ Category Theoretic Models of Quantum Spacetime and the Logical-Causal Formalism of Quantum Relational Realism Workshop Venue: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Chair for Philosophy (building RAC) Raemistrasse 36, 8001 Zurich Switzerland January 29 – 30, 2010 I. Aims and Motivation Recent work in the natural sciences—most notably in the areas of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology—has demonstrated that the lines separating philosophy and science have all but vanished with respect to current explorations of ‘fundamental’ questions (e.g., string theory, multiverse cosmologies, complexity-emergence theories, the nature of mind, etc.). The centuries-old breakdown of ‘natural philosophy’ into the divorced partners ‘philosophy’ and ‘science,’ therefore, must be rigorously re- examined. To that end, much of today’s most groundbreaking scholarship in the natural sciences has begun to include explicit appeals to interdisciplinary collaboration among the fields of applied natural sciences, mathematics and philosophy. This workshop will be dedicated to the question of how a philosophical-metaphysical theory can be fruitfully applied to basic conceptualizations in the natural sciences. More narrowly, we will explore the process oriented metaphysical scheme developed by philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and Michael Epperson’s application of this scheme to recent work in quantum mechanics, and the relation of these to Elias Zafiris’s category theoretic model of quantum event structures. Our aim is to give participants from various fields of expertise (see list below) the opportunity to exchange their specialized knowledge in the context of a collaborative exploration of the fundamental questions raised by recent scholarship in physics and mathematics.
  • 1 PERSPECTIVE a Philosophical Memoir: Notes on Bhaskar, Realism

    1 PERSPECTIVE a Philosophical Memoir: Notes on Bhaskar, Realism

    PERSPECTIVE A Philosophical Memoir: Notes on Bhaskar, Realism and Cultural Theory1 John Roberts University of Wolverhampton, UK I first read Roy Bhaskar in Radical Philosophy in 1980, when ‘Scientific Explanation and Human Emancipation’ appeared.2 But when Bhaskar’s work cropped up in Art & Language’s writing in the early 1980s I resolved to read his A Realist Theory of Science (1975) and The Possibility of Naturalism (1979).3 I remember buying both from the excellent philosophy section of the old Compendium Books store in Camden Town. Art & Language were (probably) the first artists and art-theorists to recognise the critical importance of Bhaskar’s writing for a non-reductive account of realism in relation to art and cultural theory, given their general familiarity with debates in the philosophy of science and Anglo-American philosophy of language. W.V.O. Quine and Nelson Goodman, for instance, were part of the group’s daily conversational practices as artists during this period.4 Indeed, given their familiarity with the issues of intention, intension, the causal theory of representation (of- relations) the critique of empiricism and their general grounding in analytic philosophy and Boolean formal logic, the group were certainly well placed to develop Bhaskar’s own ground-breaking critique of empiricism in the philosophy of science, and push it in a productive cultural direction. Bhaskar became a crucial mediating figure between the ‘post-metaphysical’ interrogative mechanics of the analytic tradition and the genealogical-materialist
  • Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism

    Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism

    The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Author(s): Curtis Forbes Source: Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2018) 1-11. Published by: The University of Toronto DOI: 10.4245/sponge.v9i1. EDITORIALOFFICES Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Room 316 Victoria College, 91 Charles Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1K7 [email protected] Published online at jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations ISSN 1913 0465 Founded in 2006, Spontaneous Generations is an online academic journal published by graduate students at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, University of Toronto. There is no subscription or membership fee. Spontaneous Generations provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The Future of the Scientific Realism Debate: Contemporary Issues Concerning Scientific Realism Curtis Forbes* I. Introduction “Philosophy,” Plato’s Socrates said, “begins in wonder” (Theaetetus, 155d). Two and a half millennia later, Alfred North Whitehead saw fit to add: “And, at the end, when philosophical thought has done its best, the wonder remains” (1938, 168). Nevertheless, we tend to no longer wonder about many questions that would have stumped (if not vexed) the ancients: “Why does water expand when it freezes?” “How can one substance change into another?” “What allows the sun to continue to shine so brightly, day after day, while all other sources of light and warmth exhaust their fuel sources at a rate in proportion to their brilliance?” Whitehead’s addendum to Plato was not wrong, however, in the sense that we derive our answers to such questions from the theories, models, and methods of modern science, not the systems, speculations, and arguments of modern philosophy.
  • Scientific Realism and Epistemology

    Scientific Realism and Epistemology

    SCIENTIFIC REALISM AND EPISTEMOLOGY 1 Introduction Here are some theses frequently endorsed by scientific realists: R1 The theories of mature sciences are very frequently highly success- ful (where the success of a theory may be articulated in various ways, e.g. the theory passes severe tests, or it makes novel pre- dictions that are confirmed by observation, or it provides a unified explanation of disparate phenomena, etc.). R2 The theories of mature sciences are very frequently true or close to the truth. And so, frequently, the entities, often unobservable, posited by the theories of mature sciences exist. R3 This success is not accidental. Our belief in theories (or in their ap- proximate truth) is frequently justified and amounts to knowledge. R4 The reasoning process by which we come to believe the theories of mature sciences very often is an inference to the best explanation. R5 The reason why we should believe R2 is R1. That is the best ex- planation for the success of the theories of mature sciences is that those theories are very frequently true or nearly true. Here are two theses endorsed by many anti-realists: A1 The apparently well-confirmed theories of mature sciences are very frequently found, in the long run, to be false. A2 We should expect current theories to be falsified in due course (by induction on A1). And here are theses endorsed by some anti-realists: A3 We cannot know that a theory involving commitment to unobserv- able entities is true or close to the truth. A4 Inference to the best explanation is not a reliable means of infer- ring that a theory is true (or approximately true), at least if it in- volves commitment to unobservable entities.
  • Contra O Ceticismo: Lukcs E Bhaskar

    Contra O Ceticismo: Lukcs E Bhaskar

    CONTRA O CETICISMO EPISTEMOLÓGICO: A CONTRIBUIÇÃO DE LUKÁCS E BHASKAR Sandra Soares Della Fonte Profa. da UFES Doutoranda UFSC/CAPES Em nome da luta contra o positivismo, uma nova onda cética, sob uma capa pós- moderna, interpõe-se nas ciências humanas e na filosofia nos últimos anos e se traduz pela máxima de que a realidade é interna às convenções e aos esquemas culturais dos diversos grupos sociais1. São vários os argumentos dos partidários desse ceticismo epistemológico. Em um extremo, Baudrillard2 assevera que há uma ilusão radical na crença de que a realidade existe, de que há um referente para o conhecimento. Para ele, como não há real e não há vontade, o que resta é uma saída estetizante: “O que conta é a singularidade poética da análise. Só isso pode justificar escrever, e não a miserável objectividade crítica das idéias”3. Rorty4 não chega a negar a existência da realidade, mas nega a possibilidade de a ela ter acesso fora do âmbito de descrições particular. O autor afirma que a noção de um espelho da natureza desanuviado, de um ser humano que conhece o fato, é uma imagem de Deus. Joyce5 destaca que “o que está em questão não é a existência do real, mas – dado que o real só pode ser apreendido através de nossas categorias culturais – que versão do real deve predominar”. Ao reagir à epistemologia realista, ele acrescenta que o próprio referente é um produto discursivo da história. Já Braun6 explicita um dos desdobramentos mais diretos dessa discussão para a historiografia: “Assim, a ‘realidade’ passada não existe; no 1 Cf.
  • Critical Realism, Cultural Studies and Althusser on Ideology

    Critical Realism, Cultural Studies and Althusser on Ideology

    Critical Realism, Cultural Studies and Althusser on Ideology (Preliminary remarks) (paper prepared for the IACR-conference "Debating Realism(s)", Roskilde University, Denmark, 17-19 August 2001) Hans Puehretmayer Introduction In my paper I first want to give a short outline of Althusser’s theory of ideology. I will suggest to divide his contributions to a conception of the ideological into four parts: i theoretical ideologies as conditions of science, and science as continually produced and continually threatened epistemological break with theoretical ideologies ii ideology as lived relation of individuals and groups to their conditions of existence iii relatively autonomous Ideological State Apparatuses securing the reproduction of a social formation iv ideology (in general) as constitutive mechanism for (each) subjectivity I did not choose Althusser by chance, I chose Althusser because he was one of the most influential authors both for Roy Bhaskar’s Critical Realism and for Cultural Studies (especially in the 1970s and 80s) (cf. Bhaskar 1989; Bhaskar 1997; Grossberg 1993; Barker 2000). Roughly one could say that Bhaskar has supplemented Althusser’s theory of epistemology (which he has adopted) with a new theory of ontology1 (which possibly is present implicitly in Althusser’s texts); while Cultural Studies - though critically - adopted the conceptions of ideology as lived relation of individuals to their conditions of existence and the conception of ideological apparatuses; in the 1990s they increasingly included the question of the constition of subjectivities, esp. in their research about racism, anti-racist resistance (f.e. Phil Cohen, Paul Gilroy, Les Back) and institutionalized sexist practices and discourses (McDowell 1997).
  • Hilary Putnam and Immanuel Kant: Two ‘Internal Realists’?

    Hilary Putnam and Immanuel Kant: Two ‘Internal Realists’?

    DERMOT MORAN HILARY PUTNAM AND IMMANUEL KANT: TWO ‘INTERNAL REALISTS’? ABSTRACT. Since 1976 Hilary Putnam has drawn parallels between his ‘internal’, ‘prag- matic’, ‘natural’ or ‘common-sense’ realism and Kant’s transcendental idealism. Putnam reads Kant as rejecting the then current metaphysical picture with its in-built assumptions of a unique, mind-independent world, and truth understood as correspondence between the mind and that ready-made world. Putnam reads Kant as overcoming the false dichotomies inherent in that picture and even finds some glimmerings of conceptual relativity in Kant’s proposed solution. Furthermore, Putnam reads Kant as overcoming the pernicious scientific realist distinction between primary and secondary qualities, between things that really exist and their projections, a distinction that haunts modern philosophy. Putnam’s revitalisation of Kant is not just of historical interest, but challenges contemporary versions of scientific realism. Furthermore, Putnam has highlighted themes which have not received the attention they deserve in Kantian exegesis, namely, the problematic role of primary and secondary qualities in Kant’s empirical realism, and the extent of Kant’s commitment to conceptual pluralism. However, I argue that Putnam’s qualified allegiance to Kant exposes him to some of the same metaphysical problems that affected Kant, namely, the familiar problem of postulating an absolute reality (Ding an sich), while at the same time disavowing the meaningfulness of so doing. In conclusion I suggest that Putnam might consider Hegel’s attempts to solve this problem in Kant as a way of furthering his own natural realism. 1. INTRODUCTION: PUTNAM AND KANT Putnam’s central focus since 1976 has been an attempt to articulate a kind of realism which does not end up either falsifying the world, through a false extrapolation from the results of science, or losing it entirely in scepticism and relativism.
  • SCIENTIFIC REALISM in the AGE of STRING THEORY Richard Dawid

    SCIENTIFIC REALISM in the AGE of STRING THEORY Richard Dawid

    SCIENTIFIC REALISM IN THE AGE OF STRING THEORY Richard Dawid String theory currently is the only viable candidate for a unified description of all known natural forces. This article tries to demonstrate that the fundamental structural and methodological differences that set string theory apart from other physical theories have important philosophical consequences. Focussing on implications for the realism debate in philosophy of science, it is argued that both poles of that debate become untenable in the context of string theory. On one side the claim of underdetermination of scientific theories, which represents a pivotal element of empiricism, looses its appeal. On the other side the dissolution of any meaningful notion of an external ontological object destroys the basis for conventional versions of scientific realism. String theory seems to suggest an intermediate position akin to Structural Realism that is based on a newly emerging principle, to be called the principle of theoretical uniqueness. An appreciation of string theory’s considerable impact on basic conceptions of philosophy of science can also contribute to a clearer picture of string theory’s status and relevance in a scientific context. 1: Introduction In one respect quantum mechanics is like the music of Arnold Schönberg: Its restricted accessibility awards eternal youth. The conception that was created 75 years ago to replace the failing laws of classical physics in the microscopic world still looks fresh and exciting and remains the paragon of a modern scientific theory. The unshakable status of the quantum principle as the grand enigma at the base of modern physical inquiry has a peculiar consequence however: It keeps the intellectual community outside a small group of experts strangely insensitive to the significance of the newer developments in foundational physics.
  • Tom Lewis: "Philosophical Realism & the Aesthetic in Michael Sprinker's

    Tom Lewis: "Philosophical Realism & the Aesthetic in Michael Sprinker's

    Philosophical Realism and the Aesthetic in Michael Sprinker's Literary Criticism Tom Lewis I don't consider myself an "expert" on Michael Sprinker's writings. I have not read all of his works, and among those I have read I find that his knowledge and insight into matters discussed often surpass my own. I do consider myself to be someone who has learned from Michael's work. And those lessons form the subject of this presentation. I first met Michael in 1988 at the conference he organized at the Humanities Institute at SUNY-Stony Brook on "The Althusserian Legacy." I delivered a mediocre paper entitled "The Marxist Thing," in which I attempted to use Althusser's philosophy to identify "revolution" as the disciplinary object of historical materialism. The argument of the paper, such as it was, need not concern us here. In any case, what I recall is the discussion that followed, in which Michael asked the first question. At the time I was a fairly orthodox Althusserian and so had peppered my paper with potshots here and there against epistemology. In particular, I stated that I intended to rule out of court all epistemological questions about "causal primacy" and methodological "entry points." So I cruised along my merry way thinking I had safely ducked issues like base and superstructure, the ontological status of historical objects, the epistemological status of my own work, how do we know that Marx's account of capitalism is truer than Louis Ruckheyser's, etc. Well, as you can imagine, the first question I got--from Michael, and asked
  • Tuukka Kaidesoja on Critical Realist Transcendental Realism

    Tuukka Kaidesoja on Critical Realist Transcendental Realism

    Journal of Social Ontology 2015; 1(2): 341–348 Book Symposium Open Access Ruth Groff Tuukka Kaidesoja on Critical Realist Transcendental Realism DOI 10.1515/jso-2014-0050 Abstract: I argue that critical realists think pretty much what Tukka Kaidesoja says that he himself thinks, but also that Kaidesoja’s objections to the views that he attributes to critical realists are not persuasive. Keywords: Critical realism; Naturalism; Roy Bhaskar; Social ontology. Thank you to the organizers of this symposium for inviting me to participate in it, and to Tuukka Kaidesoja for generously joining in. Here are the general facts of the matter, with respect to Kaidesoja’s Natural- izing Critical Realist Social Ontology. Kaidesoja thinks that: (1) Naturalism (the view that philosophical questions are properly settled via the deliverances and/or methodology of science) is preferable to competing meta-theoretical views; (2) Roy Bhaskar’s so-called “transcendental” argument against Hume’s account of causation fails; (3) Rom Harré and E. H. Madden’s (1975) treatment of what a causal power is (in Causal Powers) is preferable to the view of powers that Bhaskar (1978[1975]) advances in A Realist Theory of Science (RTS); Harré and Madden’s view is better because: (a) Bhaskar (according to Kaidesoja) is a Platonist about properties, while Harré and Madden are Aristotelians or immanent real- ists; and (b) Platonism about properties (Kaidesoja says) is at odds with naturalism; (4) Mario Bunge’s social ontology is preferable to Roy Bhaskar’s (1998[1979]) in The Possibility of Naturalism (PON), and to that of other critical realists; Bunge’s view is better because: (a) Bhaskar and other critical realists (says Kaidesoja) think that social structures are an abstraction, while Bunge Ruth Groff, Department of Political Science, McGannon Hall, Saint Louis University, St.