Stephen and Helmut,

SCR
I completely disagree that we live in a time of breakdown.

I did not say 'breakdown'.  I said 'fragmentation'.

SCR
The civilization the two men aimed at philosophically is an
integration of the best of inherited metaphysics with science,
arriving at a post-religious spirituality. Of course it builds
on the past, but not all of it.

That is certainly what Peirce was aiming at.  From your citation
of Abbot's defense, he seems to have similar hopes.

But the "Unified Science" that Carnap & Co. were trying to achieve
in the 1930s was nominalism at its most pernicious.  He used the
phrase "That's poetry!" to denounce any kind of value judgments
-- or any concept that resembled Thirdness.

I recall one anecdote about a student who came to the first lecture
of a philosophy class taught by a highly regarded logician.  At the
end of the lecture, the student raised his hand and timidly asked
a question:  "Professor, when will we get to the meaning of life?"
The professor glared at him, pointed to the door, and shouted "OUT!"

For evidence of fragmentation, the political sphere is the worst,
and it's affecting every aspect of our daily lives.

I would not agree that [Abbot] had wide influence or even that
he could have had.

I did not say that he had.  I said that he had a position as pastor,
which gave him a weekly opportunity to preach to his congregation.
I don't know his personal style, but I suspect it was more preachy
than sympathetic.  Any teacher who listens to the students could
get an excellent education in how to communicate.

From reading Peirce's writings chronologically, one can see that much
of his best writings came after his travels abroad, his occasional
lecture series, and the few years he taught at Johns Hopkins.  I also
believe that his correspondence with Lady Welby was a very important
influence on getting him to clarify and systematize his insights.

Since I don't know much about Abbot, I can't say anything certain.
But I do know colleagues who started with an abysmal teaching style,
listened to feedback from their students, and revised their methods
to the point where they became very popular as teachers.  One extreme
example is James Martin, who made a fortune as a lecturer and author:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Martin_(author)

Martin was no genius.  But he listened to students and colleagues.
After ten years of teaching IBM employees, he developed his style,
published some popular textbooks, and took a leave of absence from
IBM to go on a world-wide tour -- from which he earned more money
than he ever got from IBM.  So he never went back.

HR
I like Abbot very much, especially for showing progressive or
enlightened people a way to worship god and divinity, instead
of having to become atheists like Dawkins. Abbot is literally
a soul-saver, I think.

Perhaps so.  But I think he could have been more successful in saving
souls and himself if he had listened to the people in his congregation.
Like the people who heard him preach, Abbot started with a Christian
background.  Instead of alienating people, he could have listened
sympathetically.  As Unitarians, they would have been happy to hear
how their Judeo-Christian background was related to other religions.

If Abbot had listened to their complaints, he could have included
more Christian and Jewish stories and proverbs in his sermons without
in any way compromising his own beliefs.  He could have gradually
broadened his perspective while increasing his audience instead of
losing it -- and falling into the despair that led to suicide.

John
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to