Whatever it is, you're presented a problem in answering the question. You need some sort of frame for the question. You have to have a basis to decide.
Your belief in God for instance. Or your belief in Atheism, for that matter. How can you tell? How do you know? What philosophy is going to guide you in such questions? In the Relious Aspect of Philosophy, Royce asserts that religious thinking and philosophical thinking are two completely separate entities - they ought to be kept apart like church and state. In actuality, church and state are two social patterns that can't be completely separated, but philosophy, being of a higher level, should be, always. Royce points out a few areas of helpful interaction: Religion is useful to the philosopher because it informs him about the needs and aspirations of humans. Philosophy is useful to religion because it holds in common, a certain view about the way things are and how they came to be - in this ongoing evolution of knowledge, philosophy then, is good for ongoing questioning and growing - philosophers think about things much more dynamically than priests and thus informs religionists of things beyond their expertise. How this plays out in the MoQ, in my view, is exemplified by a dialogue the narrator has with his son. Chris has friends who believe in ghosts. The narrator dismisses this off-handedly, but then learns that these are Indian friends, and goes basically, oops... aha! He changes his mind. What translates as "ghost" in one culture means something completely different in another. Comparing cultural insights implies an absolute value of goodness beyond any individual culturally derived conceptions. in Kucklick's intro he says something interesting: "In writing this book, I have realized how secular my friends are, philosophers and non-philosophers, and I have been asked many times what perversity attracted me to a man identified with religious thinking, and indeed its genteel side. As I hope to show, this categorization is a mistake. But let me add that I have found Royce's moralism almost always conventional and trite. His popular philosophy is thin in substance and overblown in rhetoric. Nonetheless, at his best Royce is a powerful, and consistent, and intriguing thinker. I have been struck by the ingenious and complex maneuvers he's able to make in elaboration of his position. In reading through his published and unpublished work I have come to the feel that he was an extraordinary human being with an incredible drive with a wide range of talents. Royce has stimulated and fascinated me for six years; I hope I have conveyed this stimulation and fascinator to the reader." Now that's interesting to me because of the bias revealed in his academic friends toward atheism. as if there was no open-minded way to even address the issue, it was so hardwired into their cultural viewpoint - that being the "church of reason" viewpoint, of course. But even more interesting than this, is in his aknowledgements he lastly aknowledges the immense help he got from his wife: "My wife is a very secular young woman, and although she grew tolerant of my enterprise, her initial reaction to my plan to study Royce was uncomprehending disdain. At one point in my research, however, she went off to Britain to examine the papers of colonial civil servants. The extensive research and writing I did in those two months is much more a tribute to her than thanks for free editorial work." In other words, he got a lot done because she left him alone and he was in a frenzy while she was gone to get it done before she got back. Woman, thy name is helpfullness. And now, I really must go chop wood before MY wife gets back. 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/
