Hi Dan,
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: 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. > Jc: I see many parallels between certain aspects of Royce's writing and Pirsig. I see some big differences too, but the comparison of how disparate philosophers deal with the same sorts of problems is always enlightening. But the idea that Royce is religious is another big misconception that Auxier dispels. At least in any sort of dogmatic way. His biggest religious influence was the place he taught all those years - Unitarian Harvard. Lots of Unitarians are Atheists and Royce does not insist upon any actual existence of God in his writings. But it's true, that he does appeal to the religious today. He treats religion and it's relation to philosophy very well, I think and a common-sense philosophical view that is not reactionary or doctrinaire is refreshing to Academics who have been vilified for their religious ideas. Dan: > 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? > Jc: I think he answers this very well, I believe I already posted this quote but I'll just snip the last bit: Royce to James in a private letter: "The sum of them all is that ontology, what I mean any positive theory of an external reality as such, is of necessity myth-making; that however, such ontology may have enough moral worth to make it a proper object of effort so long as people know what they mean by it. ... the ideal of the truth-seeker is not the attainment of any agreement with an external reality but the attainment of a perfect agreement among all truthseeking beings; that the ethical philosophy is the highest philosophy." I take this as very similar to Pirsig's Quality - reality is a function of what's best - the "function" being actual experience. Dan: > > 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. > > Jc: Sure. That sounds like Royce also. Or there's always the Unitarians. Auxier says it flat out - what I've said for myself all along. For Royce, God is a concept. If that makes Royce and me theists, then I don't know what to say to you. Dan: >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. Jc: Don't we all. Dan: 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. > > Jc: Amen. I will say this in defense of religion and it's tendency to "cram down your throat". I think there is something to the act of breaking free from this kind of dogmatic trap, that makes for strong individuals. Children raised up with the answer "whatever you choose" are kind of lost from the start. They have to break out of something, in order to find something better. So I don't like to over-criticize religion since it's influence was huge in making me free to think for myself. > >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. > > Jc: I'm sure his Academic standing would compensate and he's not really a believer in God, either. He's a believer in community tho and that's the basis of his religious practice. I am a theoretical communitarian, hampered in my work by the fact that I like to be alone. lol. But I agree it would be a most interesting addition to our discussion. But then, Randy is an immense addition to any discussion. He's very knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects and has a great store of books under his belt, as well as a perfect memory for words. I can admire him, but it all looks a bit tiring to me. > >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. > > Jc: When I say "busy" of course, I mean heavily committed to all kinds of professional projects and writing books, etc. He's busy with the patterns of his own choices. It's tricky pushing "my" or your choices on other people, unless they're truly searching. > >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. > > Jc: Yes, I agree. I was actually being kind of facetious but it is true that we don't grow our membership much over the years. It either speaks of a very limited interest in discussing Pirsig's ideas or an already-full schedule. And often it is, you know, that the best people have the fullest schedules. You are a fine example, Dan. As always, John 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
