Hi Dan, I've not read Auxier yet either, but you referred to: "... an apparent opposition between religion and science that I thought Robert Pirsig answered well in his writings. Rather than trying to bring back some vaguely veiled religious fundamentalism to combat the rise of science, isn't it better to incorporate science, religion, and art all under the scope of one umbrella?"
Terry Eagleton is on the same mission, but I'm not sure he's found MoQism yet (blogged about him recently too) but what is interesting in your comment is this. I agree, and I agree Pirsig's writings gave us the answer a synthesis of all those things. All I would question is why a negative reaction to "veiled religious fundamentlism" - dogmatic fundamentalism bad sure, but what about "faith in quality" as the basis of a living metaphysics. A "strong view, lightly held". Eagleton has a fair bit to say about dogma - in all churches, reason, culture, art or religion. Ian On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:47 AM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> "I took it as a very positive sign when, in Feb. of 07 I was meeting with >> Hilary and Ruth Anna Putnam about Hilary's forthcoming volume in the >> Library of Living Philosophers, and gracious as he always is, Hilary asked >> "what are *you* working on?" I said "a book on Royce," and his face lit up >> as he said "I *love* Royce." >> >> Hilary Putnam, the defender of Realism, convert to the philosophies of >> James and Dewey from the narrow straits of linguistic philosophy, >> *loves*Royce? >> >> That can only be a good sign." >> >> from the Preface to *Time, Will and Purpose; Living Ideas from the >> Philosophy of Josiah Royce* >> by Randall Auxier > > Dan: > I had never heard of Randall Auxier so when you mentioned the name in > a previous post I took the time to Google him and to read the review > of his Time, Will and Purpose; Living Ideas from the Philosophy of > Josiah Royce on Amazon > [http://www.amazon.com/Time-Will-Purpose-Living-Philosophy-ebook/dp/B00GW5KU8O/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395214121&sr=1-1&keywords=Randall+Auxier] > part of which I copied and pasted here: > > "It is valuable to consider the reasons underlying the demise of > interest in Royce and its recent revival. Royce was known for his > rationalism and philosophy of absolute idealism, both of which fell > out of favor with the rise of scientific philosophy. Most > philosophers, including Auxier, currently interested in Royce do not > understand themselves as philosophical absolutists or rationalists. > They do, however, have an interest in reviving a form of metaphysics > in philosophy which analytic philosophy in their view cast aside to > its detriment. Those interested in Royce tend to think both analytic > philosophy and European existential philosophy have reached dead-ends, > the former because of its exclusive focus on science and the latter > for its subjectivity and lack of rigor. Thinkers interested in Royce > tend to have a strong interest in religion. They also tend to > emphasize the many pragmatic elements in Royce, as part of a broader > philosophical revivial [sic] of interest in American pragmatism." > > Dan comments: > Without reading the book (since it is $34.54 for the Kindle version) I > see that there seems to be an apparent opposition between religion and > science that I thought Robert Pirsig answered well in his writings. > Rather than trying to bring back some vaguely veiled religious > fundamentalism to combat the rise of science, isn't it better to > incorporate science, religion, and art all under the scope of one > umbrella? > > In addition, I would like to further explore if religion as Royce > expounded upon can be studied without the seemingly inherent belief in > theism, faith in a supernatural being giving rise to the universe as > we know it. Dave Buchanan recently recommended the book Religion > Without God by Ronald Dworkin which I think is highly apropos here and > what's more it's only $10 for the Kindle. > > From my admittedly limited readings of Royce, I doubt one can be > separated from the other without damaging the intent of the author's > original writings. Contrary to what some may think, I am not a > theophobe in any sense of the word, but nor do I appreciate having > morality rammed down my throat by those who do fear their god. I > happen to believe there is good and bad in everyone but in most > instances the good holds an ever so slight sway over the bad. > Otherwise, I doubt we'd be talking like this. > >>John: >> Randy is mainly a Jamesian and a breath of fresh air since my limited >> experience with W. James scholars has been very poor. But in Randy I've >> found a great mind, open to dialogue on the big ideas. Also he's a fan of >> Pirsig and teaches him in his classes at Carbondale - THE center for >> students of American Philosophers, I have learned. We have had a lot of >> fruitful back and forth with what he knows of James and Royce and what I >> know of Pirsig and I'd like to invite him to join this discussion where he >> would be exposed to a wider range of expertise than dilettante moi can >> provide but unfortunately, he's also a church-going Methodist and I'm >> afraid he'd just be subjected to the same inane, anti-theistic vilification >> I have experienced here. > > Dan: > That's too bad. If he has read Pirsig and teaches his work in class he > might be a breath of fresh air here, even if he only poked his head in > occasionally to offer some insights into his own interpretations of > the MOQ. I don't think there is any reason why a church-going > Methodist would be vilified unless they decided to start evangelizing. > There are plenty of sites for that but I doubt it would go over well > here. > >>John: >> Plus he's pretty busy. > > Dan: > I run a business and write all night long. I'm busy too. If something > is important we find the time. If not, then it isn't. > >>John: >> That's probably the biggest problem we have around here - truly high >> quality people don't have much time to chat about it; they just get on with >> their lives. > > Dan: > I guess I don't see the problem in the same light that you apparently > do. For my part, I see a number of high quality contributors here. I > enjoy occasionally sharing ideas and though for the most part I am in > way over my head I do learn a great deal too by bouncing on the bottom > and coming up for air periodically. > >>John: >> Maye that's a clue to us all. > > Dan: > I will take that in the nicest way possible. > > Thanks John. Always a pleasure, > > Dan > > http://www.danglover.com > 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
