dmb,
> I sincerely wonder what you think you're defending. I mean, what do you > think "The Absolute" is? It's just God without the beard and trousers. And > that brings us to one of your other sore spots, doesn't it? It's not the > opposition to fundamentalism and nazis that bothers you so much as the > opposition to theism, because that's something you can take personally. Dave, you're doing that projecting thing again. I identify with Royce, admitedly. I like his thought and I like his style. He's not according to everyone's taste, admittedly, but his is mine. We have many, many things in common, some in personality - some in mere coincidence. But Mrs. James couldn't stand Josiah, and neither, evidently, can you or a whole bunch of academic judges according to Bruce Kuklick, who I herewith quote from his intro: "When Royce and James taught at Harvard the issues between pragmatism and idealism were perhaps most muddied because the two men were pictured as opponents. I shall try to show, however, that Royce was a pragmatist as early as 1880 and that it was easy for him develop an idealistic ontology because he was a pragmatist. As Royce later called his doctrine Absolute Pragmatism, we may interpret James as a pluralistic idealist. The epistemological disputes between the two men were over specific and highly technical points, but they shared certain peculiar beliefs whose central feature we may label pragmatic and whose affinities to idealism we ought to recognize." Kuklick's contention is that you can't really grasp Royce unless you understand his logic and that's the problem with you I think, a superficial reading. But hey, I get it that you're not so inclined and a guy only has so much time in life. Especially nowadays when there's so much good stuff on tv. "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." > Well, if I'm into Pirsig and Pirsig aligns himself with James and Pirsig > and James both reject this Absolute in favor of something better, then how > is my disregard illogical and ill-thought? (Dewey rejected it too, and he > started out as a Hegelian) Isn't that just consistent with being a classical > pragmatist? Why do you imagine that my position any less thought out than > yours? How do > figure your opinions are "arguments" while mine are just "high horse > rants"? I think you overestimate yourself on this score. > ".... Royce read omnivorously and had a capacity for using all sorts of information to buttress his position. He was willing to appropriate whatever good ideas were about, and it may be foolish to sort out the strands of scholarship that were most significant for him, but if I have made Royce dependent on the views of any of his contemporaries, it is on the following: Baldwin, Bradley, James, Kempe, and Peirce." Catch that bit about appropriating whatever good ideas are about? That's the attitude I'm talking about, but Kuklick's secular friends, and evidently you too Dave, just can't get over anything that smacks of theism and so the subject is closed. This closed-mindedness is what I find objectionable. The issue of God is a non-issue to me. I don't care what you choose to believe or what I choose to believe. It can change any moment anyway. But I do appreciate those who can analyze intellectually without letting their prejudice get in the way. Who are able to read omnivorously and take what is good without prejudice. Go ahead. Make a case for the Absolute. I dare you. I double dare you. > > What do you think Pirsig's Quality is David, if not an indefinable Absolute? And he already made a better case for it than I can. > dmb says: > > Oh, I see. The phrase "social dominance game" totally gives you away, dude. > You feel that your social status is at stake, like you're gonna move down > the pecking order unless I care about Royce? Taking Royce seriously means > taking you seriously, is that how you see it? That's nearly as ridiculous as > the Absolute. > > I don't have any social status, you do. So obviously we know who cares most about that and who is "given away" by what they pick up on. I don't play this social game seriously; I do take intellectual games seriously (they're more fun that way) and it's your intellectual patterns that are discordant and hurting my ears, causing my derogatory comments. "Popular but stupid" is a pattern I've derided all my life. "Unpopular but interesting" is always fascinating to me -hence my fascination with Pirsig AND Royce. John C 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/md/archives.html
