kelley:
> the problem, of course, is that---as i suggested with my Rorschach-like
> list of concepts--is that theories address phenomena that we cannot
> actually see, touch, taste, smell, etc. for example, one might have a
> theory that the nature of the state in western societies changed in the
> shift from early capitalism to late capitalism and perhaps one can support
> that theory by reference to empirical reality. but if i were to take your
> position of radical doubt, i'd have to ask: what is a state, how do we
> know it exists? what is capitalism and how do we know it exists? early v.
> late capitalism? and what on earth is a society and how do we know it
> exists? we can't see society, can we? have you ever seen one? when has
> anyone ever seen a capitalism?
But we are supposed to know how to construct or construe or define these things out of phenomena, are we not? At least, if we're being materialistic. I think. Even if the work is tedious and not completely hard-edged. As I'm something of a radical doubter, I've had to do this and in my experience it can be done -- with, of course, a proper amount of doubt about one's procedures, often enhanced by the opinions of one's interlocutors.
Gordon