Ant McWatt comments:
John,
In regard to your various comments about professional philosophers, yes, good
for you.
To return to the motives of my last question (!), have you thought about
establishing a Royce Discussion Group as that would be a more a more
appropriate place for your interests? As and when time allowed, I'd even help
you set one up as that would give me a good excuse to study Royce (though as a
relatively mainstream philosopher, I find it difficult to believe that someone
else hasn't done this for his work already).
Anyway, Mr Carl, I'm just trying to expand my philosophical horizons
(especially regarding the American pragmatists). However, I simply don't think
MOQ Discuss is the appropriate place to do that.
Finally, I'm sorry to hear about Bodvar btw. Let's hope he's just taking some
time off his philosophy board.
Ant
John Carl stated December 17th:
> [some text is missing here????] ...ists in the Jamews-DeweyI appreciate you
> taking the time to try and correct
> my fallacies...
---- CUT ----
> Jc: And why does your offer sound vaguely threatening to my
> ears? The only other forum I am part of is LS, which has gone pretty quiet
> with the passing of Bodvar. And no, I'm not positive he's dead, but if he
> doesn't communicate anymore it comes down to the same thing, doesn't it?
>
> I used to be susceptible to the bullying by the professional philosopher,
> but then I found a professional philosopher on my side and it's not so easy
> to push me around anymore.
>
> "One will not be able to keep a philosophy in play for very long without
> learning to work with ideals, and that requires a mastery of logic and
> metaphysics. In short, pragmatists in the James-Dewey temper will have to
> learn how to do difficult philosophy, something they hav e successfully
> avoided doing for about three generations, through disinclination, dullness
> of mind, and uniformed superstiions about the rold of reason in
> philosophy. The inheritors of the James and Dewey temper, however, are
> such as to believe that all metaphysics is is bad metaphysics-- and here we
> have nice examples among them of the methods of tenacity, authority and the
> a priori method, which is what they have done in fixing their beliefs about
> the matter. Hence, they neither read nor understand Royce, nor Whitehead,
> nor anyone else who is difficult to understand, and they often dislike
> Perice and do not understand him, even though they have developed a
> conscience about forcing themselves to read him, once."
>
>
> ibid, page 120
>
>
> I could "read" you more, but I think you get the gist...
--- CUT ---
.
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
