Thanks dave, for the meaty stuff to chew over:
> John took a wiki-look at "Rationalism vs. Empiricism": > dmb says: > > 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. Interesting. That makes sense to me, and right off I see myself and my own tendencies toward intellectualism. Which also explains my affinity for Royce, who according JD Peters in his comparison of James and Royce (and Borges and Eliot): " *Royce* loved to hike through metaphysical wastelands, frequently drawing on the geographical imagery of the American west across which his English parents had in fact trekked to his native state of California. But however far he hiked, he always arrived home with a bang and never a whimper. Com- pared to Royce's stamina, Borges and Eliot sport a greater load of metaphysical weariness." > 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] Which is also why Royce was prone to repudiation (along with James) of Hegelian Absolutism. Even though he's often accused of such by some. > 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") > It's interesting dave, to consider the construction James used to unify these two ways of looking at reality, in comparison with the construction Royce used. James came to "radical" empiricism just as Royce finally ended up in "absolute" pragmatism. Both built their synthesis from opposite ends of the spectrum, but both ended up in systems which unified these polarities. And of course, the MoQ also unifies these differing approaches as well. > > 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. > > The important point to keep in mind, dave, is that the rejection of religious absolutism is not the same thing as rejection of religious formulation. As the quote you offered earlier suggests (and radical empiricism supports) religious ideas and intuitions are not cast away, but integrated as relative to a higher absolute - Quality itself. > 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. > > I agree. And an important reason I bring Royce to the mix, is not to obviate James, but to add another aspect to his thinking - to expand him. Even as Royce/James worked together their whole life, formulating philosophies in reaction to each other, so today do they illuminate and support each other. Kuklick brings this point out better than anyone else I've read. Good stuff. Write on, dmb. JC 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
