>Catherine Driscoll wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sure, like I can't read...
> > In what way do you actually disagree with what I'm saying?
> > Catherine
if Cat's reasoning is circular, then so is any claim that dependence is not hierarchical. No one has provided actual material evidence to reveal that it's not.
>But there is nothing to either agree or disagree with in your arguments
oh nonsense.
>because they aren't arguments -- they are all about concepts in your
>head,
this has never stopped anyone before!
Carrol, you're pulling the same stunt on Cat as Roger O pulled you when you were discussing Thomas Lacquer. Social bio relations in the world also involve concepts in our head. Those concepts are real, they have real effects and they are the result of real, material processes in the world. do I actually have to dredge up Marx here on the difference betweens ants and architects?
if Yoshie disagrees with that, then she is doing a great disservice Bhaskar's critical realism.
>not social biological relations in the world. Perhaps you actually
>can't read a materialist argument. That would explain the strange
>doctrine Doug ascribes to you that questions are ontologically prior to
>affirmations.
i think you've got that backwards. The famous quip goes something like, "I haven't found the right answers to ask my questions"
You've haven't made much of an argument here either Carrol, tho, granted you're wrist hurts. Still, I don't think it's much of an argument to claim that the other person is, essentially <snort>, an idealist. You've not shown how Catherine is, you've simply asserted it and from what I've seen of the use of "idealist" and "platonic" it's used sloppily where it's simply enough to brand your interlocutor with idealist/platonic as if that will bother them and they will fold to your superiority.