Hi Dave, as i'm reading these abstractions this moments ,the feeling emerged that i have to do a lot of catch-up on Wiliam James, the American mainstream philosophy , My English!, especially my vocabulaire,and work on my spectrum.
Stunning quality all the way, mintquality. Been thinking about this sentence, as quoted,"" Radical empiricism is a rejection of scientific objectivity AND religious Absolutism."" Can i read and understand it like this proposal?, 'Radical empiricism contains the rejection of alleged scientific objectivity and religious absolutism, and ! absolutism 'an sich '? so to speak rejecting absolutism because it's projecting boundary's? can you decondense it a little bit? BTW , love the word partisan, its common use here , i'm surprised to see it in your language. my aunt was a partisan, btw, saved alive from a pile of dead body's at Bergen-Belsen by American forces. She worked for the V5 resistanceforce, and was caught by the Germans. When they found her, her weight was 25 kilo/50 pounds? She lived 3 years in the camps, even in Treblinka, and Dora Mittelbau. I my youth i had all my vacations at sea staying with my aunt, she was genetor of a very nice condo at De Haan,she died 4 years ago, this as an aside. Greetzz, Adrie 2010/10/7 david buchanan <[email protected]> > > John took a wiki-look at "Rationalism vs. Empiricism": > > The most prominent distinguishing characteristic between these two > philosophies is that strict empiricists reject all *a priori* truths, > decrying any belief in innate knowledge or intuition -------- So to an > empiricist, "belief" is the problem. Do they believe this strongly? And > from what "facts" is it derived? > > > > dmb says: > > Those are very broad terms and every thinker is some mixture of the two so > it's really just a matter of emphasis but basically we're talking about the > classic-romantic split or, as James put it, the tough minded and the tender > minded. They both take the view that each school appeals to a different > temperament or personality style. > Remember that classroom scene in Chicago wherein Phaedrus the Ph.D. student > confronts the Chairman about the truth of Socrates's analogy? In that > analogy, the human soul is represented a chariot pulled by two horses, one > is wild and passionate and the other is the rational part of the soul. In > that analogy, the passions want to lead you down to earth and down into the > desires of the flesh while the rational part wants to lead you upward toward > the good and the true and the beautiful. From this point of view, empirical > reality and the senses are not to be trusted. That's the low stuff that > you're supposed to try and rise above. This is the original rationalism. It > was spiritually oriented, otherworldly and very anti-empirical. > > Much later, rationalism was the notion that the truth could be arrived at > through pure reason, the way whole mathematical or geometric systems can be > built up from a few basic axioms or foundational principles. Descartes and > Spinoza are rationalists in that sense. But by the time we get to William > James's world, rationalism (or intellectualism) refers to guys like Hegel, > Bradley and Royce. In James's time, rationalism was represented by these > Absolute Idealists and empiricism was represented by scientific positivism, > which was a very narrow brand of sensory empiricism with materialist > assumptions. > > Now I think it's very important to understand that Pragmatism was invented > as a way to integrate these two rival schools of philosophy, these two > styles of thought, in the same way that Pirsig wants to integrate the > classic and romantic modes of understanding. This is what the expansion of > rationality is all about. These guys are saying that feeling and reason, > sense and logic, are not enemies and that our best understanding of things > will always make use of both together. Stanford puts it in terms of being > the "mediator" between theses extremes but I think "integrator" is a much > better word. > > "James classifies philosophers according to their temperaments: in this > case “tough-minded” or “tender-minded.” The pragmatist is the mediator > between these extremes, someone, like James himself, with “scientific > loyalty to facts,” but also “the old confidence in human values and the > resultant spontaneity, whether of the religious or romantic type” (P, 17)." > (Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy) > > About these two categories, James says: > > "...I select them solely for their convenience in helping me to my ulterior > purpose of characterizing pragmatism. Historically we find the terms > ’intellectualism’ and ’sensationalism’ used as synonyms of ’rationalism’ and > ’empiricism.’ Well, nature seems to combine most frequently with > intellectualism an idealistic and optimistic tendency. Empiricists on the > other hand are not uncommonly materialistic, and their optimism is apt to be > decidedly conditional and tremulous. Rationalism is always monistic. [dmb > adds - the Hegelian Absolute is monistic] It starts from wholes and > universals, and makes much of the unity of things. Empiricism starts from > the parts, and makes of the whole a collection-is not averse therefore to > calling itself pluralistic. Rationalism usually considers itself more > religious than empiricism, but there is much to say about this claim, so I > merely mention it. It is a true claim when the individual rationalist is > what is called a man of feeling, and when the individual empiricist prides > himself on being hard-headed. In that case the rationalist will usually also > be in favor of what is called free-will, and the empiricist will be a > fatalist– I use the terms most popularly current. The rationalist finally > will be of dogmatic temper in his affirmations, while the empiricist may be > more sceptical and open to discussion." (William James in "The Present > Dilemma in Philosophy") > > As you can see, the rivalry between the tender-minded and tough-minded > helps to explain the battle between religion and science. And we can see how > the views are never purely one or the other. Scientist speak about the > physical universe with religious awe and fundamentalist seek scientific > support for their creation myth. In real life these two schools are blended, > confused and adopted in all kinds of contradictory ways. But James and > Pirsig are offering a more deliberate integration of the two. > > Then you get to radical empiricism. This is common to James, Dewey and > Pirsig. It is mainstream American philosophy. Here you get an integrated > picture of the relations between "intellectualism and sensationalism". It is > a form of empiricism, as the name so obviously indicates, so that all > knowledge begins with experience and is derived from experience. The > concepts and ideas we have are always secondary. But it parts company with > the more narrow forms of traditional empiricism. Unlike the positivists, the > radical empiricists do not exclude feeling and interests. For them, valid > empirical data is not limited to the five senses and "experience" not > limited to disinterested observation. Radical empiricism is a rejection of > scientific objectivity AND religious Absolutism. > > It's funny. By trying to integrate the two rivals, James has bitter enemies > on both sides. Very religious types see pragmatism as the work of the devil > and the scientific types think James is way too religious. I've seen the > same reaction to Pirsig right here in this forum. The scientific types are > scared off by Pirsig's mysticism and the religious types freak out over his > atheism. As you may have guessed by now, I'm saying that the beauty of this > integration is lost such partisans. > > > > > > > > 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 > -- parser 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
