Exactly, Dave. Nothing is more enlightening than the perceptive arguments of your dialogic opponent. Use me, I'm here.
John On 9/8/15, david <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- "finite players play within boundaries. Infinite players play *with* boundaries." 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
