dmb,
> dmb says: > > And even if idealism were relevant, there are lots of different kinds of > idealism and so we'd have to be much more specific. Jc: Yes! That is the crux of the matter, imho. Too often around here idealism gets a bad rap... or at least, a facile one. There is such a bias toward the scientific worldview as the only really intellectual stance, that science's view of idealism as being "merely in your head" is just assumed to be the case. Royce said: "In its "epistemological" sense, idealism involves a theory of the nature of our human knowledge; and various decidedly different theories are called by this name in view of one common feature, namely, the stress that they lay upon the "subjectivity" of a larger or smaller portion of what pretends to be our knowledge of things. In this sense, Kant's theory of the subjectivity of space and time was called by himself "transcendental idealism". But in its "metaphysical" sense, idealism is a theory as to the nature of the real world - however we may come to know that nature... it is the metaphysical and not the epistemological meaning of the term "idealism" that has been customary in the literature since Hegel. This fact, every well-informed student will have in mind whenever he uses the word without express definition. To imagine that a metaphysical idealist is such a person whose principles consistently involve the doubt or denial of the existence of everything and every one excepting his own finite self, is an old and trivial misunderstanding, unworthy of an historical student. A metaphysical idealist will of course deal with the problem of the relation of knowledge and its object, and will try to get at the nature of the real world by means of a solution to this very problem. A doctrine remains, in the metaphysical sense, idealistic, if it maintains that the world is, in its wholeness, and in all of its constituent parts, a world of mind or of spirit." Now the key phrase here is "or of spirit" and what THAT means is so broad as to be a widely-argued phrase of contention. But a case could be made for DQ as spirit. I realize that you're terrified of theism creeping in via this back door, but can't you see that if you slam the door shut too tightly against anything like "spirit" you're in danger of the pitfalls of either Objectivism or Nominalism? > The kind that says "it's all in your head" is probably best described as > solipsism - or maybe subjective idealism if you're feeling generous. Bishop > Berkeley was the kind of idealist that would say, "to be is to be > perceived". Things exists only so long as they are being perceived by a > mind. Because he was a theologian, it wasn't very hard to climb out of the > absurd implications. Since we cannot tolerate realities that blink in and > out of existence depending on whether anyone is watching or not, he brought > God in to perceive all things at all times and thereby maintain all being. > (Possibly the least plausible theory I ever heard.) Kant is a special case > because he was trying to mix his idealism with empiricism but he was also > just sort of rationalizing his prior commitments to Christianity. Hegel and > the British idealist had a very grandiose and clean sort of Absolute > idealism. > > > Stanford's article on Royce opens with this sentence: "Josiah Royce was > the leading American proponent of absolute > idealism, the metaphysical view (also maintained by G. W. F. Hegel and > F. H. Bradley) that all aspects of reality, including those we > experience as disconnected or contradictory, are ultimately unified in > the thought of a single all-encompassing consciousness." I guess it's easy > to see that this "single all-encompassing consciousness" is the Absolute, > is the God of idealism. And these guys are all pretty religious too. (James > called them "prigs".) Royce's major works show this inclination too. They > include The Religious Aspect > of Philosophy (1885) and The > Problem of Christianity (1913). > > Are you saying that James wasn't pretty religious too? Being religious was just a function of the age, and comparatively speaking, Royce was quite irreligious. But aside from all that... "Unfortunately this refusal to become adept with ideals reduces pragmatism to an unending series of edifying dialogues, an exchange of opinions and efforts to communicate private vocabularies, the effect of which on the world and the academy is *most* unpragmatic. Philosophy becomse an irrelevant chatter among eggheads. And that is what neo-pragmatism has become, except in the very few cases in which a contemporary pragmatist has broken the mold and dared to speak of ideals." Auxier, Time Will and Purpose, 119. The point is, that idealism is about ideals. Quality is an ideal. If you can't make that leap of logic, then happy chattering. 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
