Sounds like we are pretty much agreed, John. I have posited that we have
about a century to get things right and that would include leeching science
of nominalism and I would add binary proclivities. Peirce and Abbot were
staunch realists who are one in moving metaphysics into a configuration
that would have made it amenable to the stringent demands of the
pragmaticist maxim. My background is on the liberal side of American
religion and I can suggest that Peirce and Abbot would have felt just as
alienated as I have by what has passed for liberalism even in its
Niebuhrian garb. The theological makeover desired by both men would have
led them inexorably toward both universalism and nonviolence and away from
the creedal messianism that continues to hold sway. The late Gene Sharp
would have appealed to both men.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 5:30 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:

> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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