Who is Hunter Brown? On Mar 5, 2010, at 1:35 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> > dmb said to John: > > Pretending that I didn't give my reasons or support them with the relevant > textual evidence just won't work. All this stuff is recorded and archived. I > can play the tape so denying it will only make you look dishonest. You've > shoved the actual reasons aside and replaced them with sinister motives and > character flaws. I believe that's called "adding insult to injury". Who is > being closed-minded here, John? You're the one who literally refuses to even > acknowledge that reasons count as reasons. > > > John replied: > > Play the tape then. Show me where you've offered actual textual evidence > that is more than a cursory dismissal. More than some other > philosophologistic opinion. Make me look dishonest. If I'm wrong, I'll > admit it. But you can't just whine that you've "made your case". You > actually have to make a case. ...What "reasons"? That he's just a Hegelian? > That he used the term "Absolute Thought" at one time early in his career? > You haven't given any reasons Dave, just your knee-jerk reactions. They only > seem like all-important reasons to you because everything in your head seems > all-important to you. But real reason is presenting a case that a reasonable > person can follow. By all means, I invite you to do so. I've only been > asking for that all along, after all. > > dmb says: > > That's hilarious. What you've done here is pretend that I didn't make the > case and you've pushed the evidence aside and replaced it sinister motives > and character flaws, and you did so in response to my accusations that you > had been doing exactly that. > > Apparently you have a very different idea about what constitutes valid > evidence in this kind of situation. As I see it, no reasonable person could > simply dismiss a case as basic as the one I just made to you. Let me walk you > through it. > > The first thing I did was supply a general definition of both Royce's > Absolute and the general idea of an Absolute. For that, I used a common > public source just to establish what we're talking about here. Then quoted > Pirsig saying that his notion of the good "is not some intellectualized > Hegelian Absolute". This isn't just a denial of Hegelianism in particular. It > is also a refusal to identify his good with intellectual Absolutes in > general, which are all going to be contrasted with "direct everyday > experience" because that defies even the general definition of an Absolute. > You seem to think this is a knee-jerk reaction, apparently because it's too > short and neat to count as real evidence. But I think it is short and neat > because the evidence is so clear and strong. It requires no reaching or > stretching because it's true. > On top of that, I explained how the basic parameters of radical empiricism > rule out "transexperiential entities" like the Absolute. Here's what that > looked like.... > > Wiki says that Royce, "conceived the Absolute as a unitary Knower Whose > experience constitutes what we know as the 'external' world", which is not > much different from the general definition: "an unconditional reality which > transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is often used as an > alternate term for a 'God' or 'the Divine'". > > > Pirsig says, "The MOQ is a continuation of the mainstream of 20th century > American philosophy. It is a form of pragmatism, of instrumentalism, which > says the test of the true is the good. It adds that this good is not a social > code or some intellectualized Hegelian Absolute. It is direct everyday > experience". > > > It's also worth noting the basic rules of radical empiricism because they > practically tailor made to preclude the Absolute. James wants to reconstruct > all of philosophy on the back of two simple restraints. If it IS known in > experience, your philosophy can't ignore it. If it is NOT known in > experience, you can't use it in your philosophy. James and Pirsig both call > themselves radical empiricists and it's no accident that they both oppose > this transcendent Divine Knower. If it transcends experience, then > philosophers have no business making claims about it, let alone making claims > about the ultimate nature of reality. ...In his essays, James calls things > like the Absolute "transexperiential entities" and his aim there is to get > rid of them all. He wants philosophy to proceed only on the basis of > experience. > > > I won't duplicate the quotes from secondary sources, but remind you that both > of those philosophers open their comparisons of James and Royce by noting > that they disagreed about the Absolute and that this was central to their > thought. That was Mullin's "The Soul of Classical American Philosophy" and > your gal Jackie in an introduction to the Royce section of an anthology of > pragmatism. > > Obviously, the case being made here is that Royce is at odds with James and > Pirsig on core issues, the Absolute being the main example of that. In this > case, I quoted a primary source (Pirsig denying some Absolute), summarized a > primary source (explained how his radical empiricism rules out Absolutes), > quoted two secondary sources (Jackie and Mullins saying they differed on > that) and I used a tertiary source to establish the broad basics of what an > Absolute is. In terms of philosophical comparisons, evidence doesn't get any > better than that. This doesn't mean it's irrefutable or even that it's right > but that is the classic form. IF you're using the relevant pieces of primary, > secondary and tertiary sources and the other guy cries foul or dismisses it, > he is simply playing a different game. But I don't know what that game could > be nor do I see how a reasonable person could dismiss such a thing. > > John said: > Yes, I realize that is your conclusion. It has been your conclusion for > about as long as I've been communicating with you. That conclusion, is a big > part of the problem I have with you. I don't know what it would do to make > you see me any different than who I am. I've communicated who I am as > openly, honestly and sincerely as I can. I've revealed myself as much as > anybody I can think of. To my mind, nothing you conclude about me matches > the way I see myself, but how can I possibly change your mind when you don't > want it changed? And what more am I supposed to say about myself that I > haven't already? I probably say too much about myself as it is. > > > dmb says: > > Okay, let's not make it about you personally. I want to focus on one key idea > here for a minute. You say that my conclusions about you don't match the way > you see yourself. But all I can do is evaluate your posts, your ideas, your > responses to ideas in this forum. Whatever conclusions I draw are based on > what you're saying and that is right there in front of both of us. In the > case above, for example, where I complain about the particular ways in which > you are being unreasonable, your response was to be unreasonable again in > exactly the same way. I mean, this is not just some fantasy about who you > are, it is a critical analysis of your own words and those words are right in > front of you. And then there is the fact that I'm also having to repeat, to > "play the tape" because this unreasonableness includes your dismissal of the > only kind of evidence there is for things such as this; textual evidence. > What else could I conclude from this? > > > The case can be made much more elaborately by comparing their whole systems > of philosophy, with their respective changes and developments over time but > we'd only come to the same conclusion. We don't need to do all that work > because Pirsig and James simply tells us that their views don't include the > Absolute, that their proposing something quite different. I could even show > you where James says that rationalists (Absolute idealists) and empiricists > are two different kinds of people with fundamentally different temperaments. > He says, basically, that the former worldview makes him feel sick inside. I > kid you not. It's too buttoned up and straight-laced a thing for him. > Humorously, he says that not all Hegelians are prigs, but all prigs, if they > develop their priggishness far enough, will become Hegelians. Yes, he and > Royce were friends and Royce distanced himself from Hegel but he remained an > idealist of sorts and held to an Absolute of sorts and despite all their > years of friendly debate, James was never convinced and his empiricism only > deepened until his last breath. > > > John said: > > Well, I never heard of him before I enjoined this conversation, and the > people I hang with don't discuss such things. I only know he's a pretty > respected thinker because Matt told me so, and the fact that he's (Kuklick) > is an atheist but still he highly appreciative of Royce's thinking led me to > assume the theistic overtones aren't quite so off-putting for some as others. > > > > dmb says: > > Oh, I'm pretty sure he's legitimate. My complaint was about the lack of > context and explanation from you when you quote him. I was also making fun of > his name, but that's just a language joke. But, for example, it would be nice > to know something about the nature of the book you're quoting from, what > topic is in the section where you found it, what his terms mean and what you > draw from it. This sort of stuff is so lacking, in fact, that there is > nothing to indicate that you even understand what you're quoting. I'm not > saying you don't, just that I can't tell if you do or not. I secretly suspect > that you're just looking for an interpreter when you post that stuff. Well, > that exaggerates the point a bit but still. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/ > 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 ___ 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
