Joe,
I'll leave aside my disagreement over Hume because this is a Foucault list
and because it's when you come to causality that thigs get really
interesting. I should also probably own up to being a bit of an interloper
on this list since my research is more concerned with Bhaskar (I don't know
if you are aware of his stuff). The issue of "causality" is something that
Bhaskar, along with others such as Harre, has radically transformed. But, he
argues that the positivist/empiricist account of causation that you atribute
to Hempel doesn't even hold in the natural sciences. Constant conjunctions
have to be worked for, in general by humans intervening to create closed
systems. Given this, there is, he claims, an ontological distinction between
sets of constant conjunctions and the laws they identify. Now transposed
into an open world if these laws are to make sense they must refer to
'causal mechanisms' which exist and endure independently of their mode of
identification - that is the constant conjunctions. Moreover, there are
always multiple causes in play, hence my previous statement about falling
apples tending to hit the ground can now be amended by the addition of, 'not
if I catch them, or they catch on a branch which has the power to hold them,
etc.' This is a rejection of regularity determinism. hence your account of
the settlers moving West is perfectly in accord with this view of causality
developed by Bhaskar et. al. The important point, is that this is the
account of cause that the natural sciences use not the Humean (how did he
reappear) one.
> My last comment here is about soemthign different, and
> somethign I think will offend some people on this channel -
> it seems to me that Focuault's "metaphysics" - whcih is
> something we have been discussing, rests upon some strange
> Merleau-Pontyesque notion og hte body as saome kind of
> substance. Soem of the problems with empiricism brought out
> in this discussion apply here. What is Foucualt's
> materialism all about? What kind of "site" is the body? At
> the very least, it in soem ways is the passive receptor of
> signs and codes - much like hte "mind" is a passive recpetor
> of imopressions. Anyone care to elaborate on this?
Yes, well I also suspect that it is likely to offend some on this list.
Still, the link between the "postmodern" destruction of the 'subject' and
the positivist destruction of the 'subject' is probably much closer than
some would care to admit: consider behaviouralism for example. Hume (can we
get away from this man?) thought that the 'subject' was nothing but a
'bundle of perceptions' and Locke, of course, introduced the notion of a
'blank slate'. And Foucault's materialism: what are the 'extra-discursive'
elements? I think for Foucault these questions arose out of his concern to
explore the limits of "anti-humanism". How far can you push this position
and retain an ethical commitment?
Thanks,
Colin
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
I'll leave aside my disagreement over Hume because this is a Foucault list
and because it's when you come to causality that thigs get really
interesting. I should also probably own up to being a bit of an interloper
on this list since my research is more concerned with Bhaskar (I don't know
if you are aware of his stuff). The issue of "causality" is something that
Bhaskar, along with others such as Harre, has radically transformed. But, he
argues that the positivist/empiricist account of causation that you atribute
to Hempel doesn't even hold in the natural sciences. Constant conjunctions
have to be worked for, in general by humans intervening to create closed
systems. Given this, there is, he claims, an ontological distinction between
sets of constant conjunctions and the laws they identify. Now transposed
into an open world if these laws are to make sense they must refer to
'causal mechanisms' which exist and endure independently of their mode of
identification - that is the constant conjunctions. Moreover, there are
always multiple causes in play, hence my previous statement about falling
apples tending to hit the ground can now be amended by the addition of, 'not
if I catch them, or they catch on a branch which has the power to hold them,
etc.' This is a rejection of regularity determinism. hence your account of
the settlers moving West is perfectly in accord with this view of causality
developed by Bhaskar et. al. The important point, is that this is the
account of cause that the natural sciences use not the Humean (how did he
reappear) one.
> My last comment here is about soemthign different, and
> somethign I think will offend some people on this channel -
> it seems to me that Focuault's "metaphysics" - whcih is
> something we have been discussing, rests upon some strange
> Merleau-Pontyesque notion og hte body as saome kind of
> substance. Soem of the problems with empiricism brought out
> in this discussion apply here. What is Foucualt's
> materialism all about? What kind of "site" is the body? At
> the very least, it in soem ways is the passive receptor of
> signs and codes - much like hte "mind" is a passive recpetor
> of imopressions. Anyone care to elaborate on this?
Yes, well I also suspect that it is likely to offend some on this list.
Still, the link between the "postmodern" destruction of the 'subject' and
the positivist destruction of the 'subject' is probably much closer than
some would care to admit: consider behaviouralism for example. Hume (can we
get away from this man?) thought that the 'subject' was nothing but a
'bundle of perceptions' and Locke, of course, introduced the notion of a
'blank slate'. And Foucault's materialism: what are the 'extra-discursive'
elements? I think for Foucault these questions arose out of his concern to
explore the limits of "anti-humanism". How far can you push this position
and retain an ethical commitment?
Thanks,
Colin
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------