Hey Ham,
> Most philosophy is not anthropocentric. And most individuals do not become >> philosophers is their youth. So I am curious as to what extreme >> anti-anthropocentric >> > philosophy you were exposed to in your youth. > In my younger days as I started out looking for a pre-law degree, I was waylaid by Deep Ecology as espoused by George Sessions. Flipped my life around and I've never looked back. And why do you say most philosophy is not anthropocentric? > > I'm acquainted with James but have not read Royce. The Harvard > Encyclopedia of Philosophy quotes this statement by Royce: "My life means > nothing, either theoretically or practically, unless I am a member of a > community." You won't have a problem selling that to the Pirsigians, since > they've been preaching it for decades. It's their tenet that the Social > Level gives rise to the Intellectual (individual) Level. Hey don't feel bad. Nobody has read Royce. On the obscurity vs importance chart he ranks near the top. Royce's philosophy of community and loyalty are his most widely aknowledged contributions, but he has some pretty interesting metaphysical arguments too. "One of the more striking features of Royce's philosophy is its emphasis on > communities as being logically prior to individuals. As we have seen, Royce > considers the notions of truth and knowledge unintelligible for the > individual unless we posit an ultimate knower of objective truth, the > infinite community of minds. The notions of personal identity and purpose > are likewise unintelligible unless we posit a community of persons that > defines causes and establishes social roles for those individuals to > embrace." > > RMP must have been influenced by Royce even more than Rorty, as "infinite > community of minds" fits the MoQ's collective consciousness like a glove. > You're right John; we are indeed miles apart. See? Told ya. > >> I don't see it in Individual Valuism. >> > > There is no other kind of Valuism. "Loyalty to loyalty" makes no sense to > me. I know he's talking about a community with a common cause. But since > value is something we want or desire, even in a collective sense, how can we > not be "loyal" to our own values? Off the top of my head by flip-flopping around; by going with the flow in order to gain social status; by failing to examine our own values deeply. There are lots of ways we can be disloyal to our own values. I'll keep reading and try and clarify this a little better. > But thanks for responding, John. It would appear that you are well on your > way to adopting the "Quality People's" party line. > My pleasure Ham, but I look at like the party is adopting me, rather than me adopting them. I guess if we deconstructed what the heck THAT means, we'd get right back near the heart of my problem with your extreme subjectivity - wherein I state that You don't have a You to stand on. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
