Ok david, I see where part of the misunderstanding is coming from. I thought I did reply to these assertions adequately, but not in a linear reply-to follow up way and if we are engaged in a "formal" type argument, I should make my replies more linear and direct.
But also, some of this does look fresh to me and I might have skimmed last friday night. I usually follow all words faithfully, but I have no recollection of some of what you are reposting below and I agree there are valid points of disputation here which I didn't respond to and so I take it back that you haven't given me any "meat" to sink my teeth in. I'd like to give it some respect, so I might take a while on parts of it. So clipping away the fat, to get to that meat, let me begin.... > > I guess it's not entirely impossible that you are sincere about this. Maybe > you have some kind of affliction that affects your memory but it's very hard > to believe otherwise. I think you're simply being dishonest. Here is one > more chance for you to prove me wrong about this. Fair warning though, I'm > not going to repeat this for a fourth or fifth time. If you can't or won't > deal with it this time, then I give up. If you're going to act like that, it > would just be foolish to waste any more words on you. > > Well I already mea culpa'ed a fair share of this, but "four or five times"? I think I woulda noticed after two. I'm not THAT dense, ya know. > The first thing I did was supply a general definition of both Royce's > Absolute and the general idea of an Absolute. > Ok, dave, I did not accept your definition of Royce's absolute. I don't accept the wiki defintion. I know you've got all kinds of authority at your fingertips, whereas I'm mainly relying on Kuklick, Clendenning and Kegely, but there is nothing wrong with their academic reputations than the sources you've pulled together and Kuklick in particular is diametrically opposed to interpretation of Royce that you listed. He says its invalid to picture Royce as outside the mainstream of Pragmatism AND it's invalid to convey pragmatism in oppostion to idealism. If you insist on my diggin' through the archives to show you his quotes, then I can. Honestly, if you're gonna take on Royce then any published work ABOUT Royce, by somebody who has studied him intensely is fair. I don't accept cursory summations in the SEP, Wiki, or anything that is a compendium of different philosophers. I DID respond to this before, but perhaps you suffer from a little of the ole attention deficit disorder yourself. And if we're stuck at the "well my sources are better than your sources" then I guess we're stuck. 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. > Well you do remember then that I have dealt with the charge of Hegelianism before. Good. You do pay a slight amount of attention to what I write then. Do you pay attention to what Pirsig writes? Do you remember the end of the story in the Coppleston Annotations? Obviously there can be some affinity for Idealism with the MoQ, and the Absolute you're rejecting depends upon the definition of your Absolute. Royce's Absolute isn't comprehended by either of you. So just because the term rings a bell in your head, that "requires no reaching or stretching because it's true" (to YOU, I might point out) doesn't mean that the actual metaphysical position is so easily dismissed. And according to my understanding, "direct everyday experience" can't be contrasted with an intellectualized Absolute, because it IS an intellectualized Absolute. Duh-uh. 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'". > Dude? Are you serious? "Is not much different?" How can you say that? There's no "transcendance" in Royces definition. His Absolute IS Experience itself! You say that's not "much different" than a reality that's beyond experience, and I don't know what's wrong with your reading and reasoning powers... No. I'm sorry. I take that back. No need to get nasty. I make many mistakes myself. I'm sorry. I just think you need to re-examine your position and get back to me. > 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". > I agree completely. So does Royce. > It's also worth noting the basic rules of radical empiricism because they > practically tailor made to preclude the Absolute. > Yeah, well that I probably agree with you on. Considering who the arguments were aimed at, there's a great deal of truth in the assertion. But in a dialectical arena, you can't understand the combat by watching only one side. > 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. > And do you remember my refutation of this assertion? I do. It relates to intersubjectivity as the precondition of knowing. Tell you what, I've got to get back to work. This will be a small start. No need biting off more than we can chew... I'll read the rest tonight and reply as I'm able and you've got some of my response to this debate and perhaps a better feel for any potential value in continuation. Sincerely, John > 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. > > > ...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. > > > > > > > > > > > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up > now. > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/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
