Adrie quoted Wikipedia to dispute John's claims: 

"His publication in 1885 of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy ...contained a 
new proof for the existence of God based upon the reality of error. All errors 
are judged to be erroneous in comparison to some total truth, Royce argued, and 
we must either hold ourselves infallible or accept that even our errors are 
evidence of a world of truth. Having made it clear that idealism depends upon 
postulates and proceeds hypothetically, Royce defends the necessity of 
objective reference of our ideas to a universal whole within which they belong, 
for without these postulates, “both practical life and the commonest results of 
theory, from the simplest impressions to the most valuable beliefs, would be 
for most if not all of us utterly impossible”. (see The Religious Aspect of 
Philosophy, p. 324)"



dmb says:


Since Royce was offering fallibilism as "a new proof for the existence of God" 
and "the necessity of objective reference of our ideas", his fallibilism is 
very, very different from the fallibilism of Pragmatists like James and Pirsig. 
I think it's fair to say that Pirsig is NOT offering theism or objectivity. 
James, Dewey, and Pirsig are quite explicit in their rejection of SOM and even 
James, the most religion-friendly of the three, wrote his Varieties of 
Religious Experience in order to DISPUTE the religious claims made by Royce. 


>From the Stanford Encyclopedia:

"Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper 
understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James delivered the 
Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments against Royce's 
idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name. James's lectures, 
published as The Varieties of Religious Experience, were a popular and academic 
success . Royce believed that James, who had never been regularly affiliated 
with an established church or religious community, had in that work placed too 
much emphasis on the extraordinary religious experiences of extraordinary 
individuals. Royce's first education was into a strongly Protestant world view, 
he always retained a respect for the conventions of organized Christianity, and 
his writings exhibit a consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He 
sought a philosophy of religion that could help one understand and explain the 
phenomena of ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary 
people. There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered on 
a metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was at 
bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and pragmatism 
of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source of religious 
experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being."



Since Pirsig was suspicious of James for trying to sneak religion in through 
the back door into philosophy, imagine what he'd think of Royce's "respect of 
the conventions of organized Christianity" and his stance "contrary to the 
open-ended pluralism and pragmatism of James". 



Like I keep saying, trying to make this Idealistic religious fanatic into a 
Pirsigian is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Why, why, why 
does John keep preaching this nonsense against all evidence and reason? This 
covert theism is bullshit and cannot be sustained without a huge dose of 
dishonesty, or ignorance, or both.



It's fine if a person insists on being an Idealist, an Absolutist, or a 
advocate of conventional Christianity but it makes no sense to paint Pirsig or 
Pragmatism in these colors. The keys concepts of these two opposed views will 
crash into each other like two trains heading in opposite directions. It's 
worse than a pointless waste of time because, frankly, it's so obviously 
stupid. It makes me sad and angry that John is allowed to continue raining his 
bullshit on Pirsig and James.









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

Reply via email to