DMB and all, I forwarded Dave's assertions to Dr. Auxier and here is his learned reply to the following of Mr. Buchanan's:
On Sunday, February 14, 2016, david <[email protected]> wrote: > 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." . R Randall Auxier to me 23 hours ago Details The Stanford encyc. is right on everything except in asserting that Royce retained respect for historical organized religion. He respected living communities. He did not see very much to respect in any church that existed historically after Christianity was institutionalized. James was more religious than Royce in the traditional sense of the term "religious." James kept up a spiritual praxis, and like Fox Mulder, wanted to believe. Royce was quite beyond any such nonsense. On the other hand, James did not have a "theology" and Royce did --unfortunately not published. The Augustus Graham Lectures, Brooklyn, 1896, contain Royce's theology. There is no point discussing his theism until you and Dave (whoever he is) have read this. I think it's up on the website of the Royce Edition project, but you have to read it in manuscript, as I did. The only part that was ever published was The Problem of Job, which was extracted from the fifth lecture, as I recall. Royce was religious in about the sense that, say, Carl Sagan was: There is order. It is amazing. It isn't about us. It includes us. We will cease someday. That's ok. If this is religious, then Royce is religious. If not (and most would say not), then he's not religious. The Stanford encyc. is right about Royce's knowledge and continual use of Scripture. He was raised on it, knew it inside out and backward and forward, and loved the Bible. He did not like the practice of religion and never participated. RA -- "Qui tacet consentit." Randall Auxier Professor of Philosophy Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901-4505 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
