Leaving aside the many insults, your over-reactionary response was actually pretty useful. Thanks, John.
> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:54:26 -0700 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] What's Personalism? > > Thanks for asking, Dave It helps to segue into a fascinating topic of > discussion. > > William James, Characterizing his philosophy as a whole, in the > 1903-04 course "A Pluralistic Description of the World," in the --The > Works of William James: manuscript Lectures--, ed. Ignas Skrupskelis > (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988) 311. > > > "It means individualism, personalism: that the prototype of reality is the > > here and now; that there is genuine novelty; that order is being won > > --incidentally reaped. That the more universal is the more abstract; that > > the smaller & more intimate is the truer. The man more than the home, the > > home more than the state or the church. Anti-slavery. It means tolerance > > and respect." > > > > > > > > dmb says: > > > > That's a statement from James? > > Jc: yes. Note the quote marks. Sorry I didn't provide the source > earlier, but the nice thing about this casual style is that any > questions can be clarified easily upon request. > > dmb: > > It didn't sound like James to me > > Jc: That's because your mental picture of James is skewered toward > your personal prejudices and you think Pirsig's MoQ frees you from the > obligation to be "objective" about intellectual matters. It's a > shame, really. > > dmb: > > >and I didn't > > recall his using of the term "Personalism," so I looked it up in the > > Stanford Encyclopedia. > > Jc: And yet you consider yourself a James scholar. > > dmb: > > Not sure what game John is playing here > > Jc: It's a game called "philosophy", Dave. Or dabbling in the world > of the intellectual - where we follow the rules of logical > argumentation and adhere to ideals like consistency and > non-contradiction and eschew fallacies. It's would be delightful if > you would play too, but you seem rather attached to the game of > supercilious authoritarianism. A much simpler game, I'm sure but in > the end, much less satisfying. > > dmb: > > >but > > Personalism is a form of idealism, the kind that goes with theism and > > theology. James' work may have displayed some elements of "Personalism" but > > it's basically a modification of Hegel's idealism, whereas James was a > > pragmatists and more than a little bit opposed to idealism. To the extent > > that Hegel's Absolute was dropped in favor of more concrete particulars, > > James would applaud. But he still thought idealists were a bunch of smug, > > stuffed shirts. > > > > Jc: > > Instead of SEP, try something a bit more serious - Jan Olaf > Bengtsson's The Worldview of Personalism Origins and Early Development > and/or Rufus Burrow Jr., Personalism: A Critical Introduction. > > "There was a long-standing claim in the literature that Bowne had > actually gotten the term "personalism" from James, who had gotten it > from Charles Renouvier, but later scholarship has put this in doubt. > On the basis of Bengtsson's research, it seems more plausible that > Bowne knew the term from his years studying with Lotze and Ulrici." > and "the worldview of personalism was well defined in the early > decades of the nineteenth century". > > Auxier, Time Will and Purpose. Page 378 > > dmb: > > > Speculative theism may be of interest to some people but the MOQ isn't > > theistic nor idealistic. Doesn't even think the "self" is a real thing. > > > Jc: Here is the interesting thing, Dave - Personalism is not about the self. > > > "... from Principles of Psychology forward, the idea of "person" in > James's writings and thinking is sharply distinguished from the > substantialist idea of "self," ... James treats 'person' as a mode of > ontological relation from the very start; he never saw 'person' as a > substance in the Cartesian sense." > > ibid. > > James, In a letter to Bowne in 1908, after reading Bowne's Personalism. > > "It seemed to me a very weighty pronouncement, and form a matter taken > together a splendid addition to American Philosophy.... it seems to me > that you and I are now aiming at exactly the same end, although, owing > to our different past, from which each retains special verbal habits, > we often express ourselves so differently. It seemed to me over and > over again that you were placing your feet identically in footprints > which my feet were accustomed to--quite independently, of course, of > my example, which has made the coincidence so gratifying. The common > enemy for of us both is the dogmatist-rationalist-abstractionist. Our > common desire is to redeem the concrete personal life which wells up > in us from moment to moment, from fastidious (and really preposterous) > dialectical contradictions, impossibilities and vetoes, but whereas > your "transcendental empiricism" assumes that the essential > discontinuity of the sensible flux has to be overcome by high > intellectual operations on it, my "radical " empiricism denies the > flu's discontinuity, making conjunctive relations essential members of > it as given... but the essential thing is not these differences, it > is that our emphatic footsteps fall on the same spot. You, starting > near the rationalist pole and boxing the compass and I traversing the > diameter from the empiricist pole, reach practically very similar > positions and attitudes." > > McConnel, Borden Parker Bowne, 277-78 > > dmb: > > > My point? One ought not take John's views seriously. He's just covertly > > thumping his bible again. Sigh. > > > > What you ought to take seriously Dave, is the integrity of your own > profession and to "play the game" well. > > 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 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
