Re: MD On Faith+understanding (Rorty/Bhaskar)

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Oct 25 2004 - 22:29:04 BST

  • Next message: Chuck Roghair: "RE: MD On Faith"

    Hello David,

    Thanks for the laugh at the end...
    given the mutual confusion between
    ground floor / first floor
    first floor / second floor
    basement / first floor
    in UK vs US it is appropriate as well...

    thanks--mel

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 5:46 AM
    Subject: Re: MD On Faith+understanding (Rorty/Bhaskar)

    > Hi all
    >
    > I think these points from ML are good. I would say that they relate
    > to what the philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar has pointed out.
    > He has drawn our attention to the fact that when we learn about
    > a new theory in science we are confronted with a set of texts and
    > formulae that we have to interpret with all the difficulties that
    > post-modernists
    > and people like Rorty have drawn our attention to. However, we clearly
    > are capable of making this leap into a common interpretation of the new
    > theory. Bhaskar suggests that the individual each time has to discover the
    > same
    > theory for themselves. Of course, they may not have understood it and have
    > made the leap into a new thoery of their own that is not the same as the
    > original
    > authors. The point in teaching is to try to reach the same
    > interpretation/understanding of
    > the theory. Often the teacher will be able to tell the student that they
    > have the wrong interpretation
    > from the generally accepted one and will try to guide them towards making
    a
    > new leap until
    > if they are lucky they get it. This seems to be the dynamic component
    > relating to the individual
    > with respect to attaining what we otherwise may look on as
    common/universal
    > structures
    > of meaning. Bhaskar also points out the realist assumption that there is
    an
    > undivided/
    > uninterpreted real world to which we relate our interpretations and will
    > either fit or
    > resist our interpretations. As he says, we do not decide to interepret the
    > second floor
    > window as a better exit than the ground floor door. Rorty will call this
    > trivial, Bhaskar
    > suggests Rorty takes the window then.
    >
    > regards
    > David Morey
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 26 2004 - 01:48:19 BST