The origins of universalism are interesting. An unfamiliar but to me the most relevant source is English universalism propounded by an obscure cleric called James Relly. John Murray brought universalism to America and the church eventually lost all of its original meaning by merging with the Unitarians. The original meaning arrived at universalism by means of assuming the universal culpability of everyone on earth. Rather than slice and dice the occupants into lost and saved, the mechanism of most religions, Relly and his followers surmised that everyonewas and is saved.This is apposite in my view and consistent with Peirce, whose fallibilism can by extension beapplied generally to human beings and their proclivities. Sorry for running words together. I blame it on my computer!
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection of the > value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was indeed > thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the value of > life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. Universalism for > me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other imperative, that > humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as means. And > scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of Kant. > So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and > pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept > of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of > life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, > maybe. > Best, > Helmut > > "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > > Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list, > > I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and > even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support > his argument *contra* Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had > a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I > have ever read an entire book by him. > > This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his books > I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which is not > to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, some of > his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although his > critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at the > moment. > See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford > > Best, > > Gary > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> > wrote: >> >> Helmut, list, >> >> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although I >> have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's >> worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, >> when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed >> down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I >> meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting >> just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve >> life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with >> other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink >> Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. >> At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no >> politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter's >> constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_. >> >> Best, Ben >> >> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: >> >> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the >> Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice >> is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth >> fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and >> direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: >> Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) >> heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project >> that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know >> that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of >> universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous. >> >> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr >> *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> <http://gary.richm...@gmail.com> >> *An:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> <http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less" >> List, >> >> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, >> "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion >> >> >> To the Editor: >> >> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American >> pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>," >> column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William >> James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were >> passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring >> democratic social institutions. >> >> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not >> paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and >> self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is >> needed is more pragmatism, not less. >> >> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO >> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014 >> >> >> >> *The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.* >> >> Brooks >> ' article, >> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D >> which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, >> may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito >> points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in *Evidence and Inquiry* terms >> "vulgar Pragmatism" >> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version. >> >> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter >> "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: >> ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is >> for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a >> great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." ( >> op. cit. >> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a >> logician. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690* >> ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply >> List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts >> should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message >> not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe >> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> > > ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply > List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts > should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not > to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe > PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
