>” but would have focused instead on the fruits of their thinking.” Exactly my point. Relates to the cultural narratives that trickle down throughout culture.
From: Stephen Curtiss Rose [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 12:31 PM To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: Clark Goble; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems... The Pragmaticist Maxim cuts through all these considerations and focuses on the practical results of thinking, musing, etc Peirce designated aesthetics and ethics as normative sciences. He was agapaic in his core understanding of things. This suggests he would have had little interest in parsing the merits of groups and religions but would have focused instead on the fruits of their thinking. Peirce was hardly universalist in his understanding however, having a blind spot about slavery. I can only assume that now that spot would have vanished. And that he would see the fruits of considerations in terms of the degree to which harm is created or prevented. That can and should be measured. It is not beyond the province of science which is also universal. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > "Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different > movement less tied to Christianity? Probably." I say probably not. And certainly not Islam. > "I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all > they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism." This occurred to me as I made my point, but in the interests of brevity, I thought I'd leave it till someone asked. You asked. Yes, communism and other religions do indeed talk about a higher purpose. As do other aggregations of society. Social obligation is fairly standard in almost any culture. But it generally expresses itself in the context of groupthink and the need to belong. Christianity is different, because it synthesizes a kind of individualism with higher purpose. The notion of Christian love enters the narrative. The courage to sacrifice for what you believe in. Does Hinduism do this? Maybe. But its historical context is different. Buddhism? Buddhism is more secular, less individualistic, and constrained by filial piety, though they still are inspired by love of truth. Could Hinduism (or even Buddhism) rise up as a religion of an advanced future? Maybe. Watch this space. Islam not. The European renaissance was inspired by something different. If some Middle-Eastern cultures have shown signs of advancement, as they have on occasion, that's because they've piggybacked on Christian-European influences. Bottom line... this all revolves around the problem of groupthink. Yes, other systems talk of higher purpose and social obligation. But Christianity synthesizes its higher purpose with individualism and the love of truth. I think that this is the distinction between Christianity/Hinduism and the rest. The individualism that has within it the cure for groupthink. Groupthink is the disease you get when imitation (knowing how to be) turns pathological. Christianity's individualistic Jesus introduced a very different template for knowing how to be. Ultimately, this relates to the distinction between the cowardice of groupthink and the courage of higher purpose. Groupthink is a very real problem. A large part of what we are witnessing in the messy politics of today is the battle between the groupthink of gullible liberalism versus the conservatism that has only recently begun to see through liberalism's masquerade of moral superiority. Groupthink needs an antidote, and for renaissance Europe, Christianity met that need. sj -----Original Message----- From: Clark Goble [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 11:48 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Democracy (was The real environmental problems... > On Jun 19, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote: > > Christianity was particularly important to the European renaissance. Why? Not quite sure what you’re asking. Could there have been a different movement less tied to Christianity? Probably. If there was a tie I suspect it was primarily due to the place of Rome in Italy where the Renaissance started. But say, to pose a hypothetical counterfactual, refugees from Constantinople primarily went to the Germaic area which had for different reasons a stronger economy than Italy. We’d have expected a very different sort of “renaissance.” So while the form the renaissance took was very Christian, I tend to see that as tied to historic accident. For that matter had Islam not arisen and Constantinople fallen, would we talk about a Renaissance? Probably not although likely many similar developments in the technique of art or thought may well have happened. Or perhaps they wouldn’t have happened at all and Europe would have been stuck in a situation more akin to the prior thousand years. If we talk evolution I think we have to recognize the place of chance in all of this. There may well be potential forms that are very useful that would be incentivized to arise. Yet the broader issues seem much more arbitrary. > But Christianity introduces another dimension that is alien to the secular > Left or the atheist Right (and the vast majority of religions)... commitment > to a higher purpose, regardless of the earthly benefits that may or may not > accrue. Is there something in that, at least as a fundamental cultural > principle? I’m nervous at attributing “higher purposes” just to Christianity. After all they’re common to many religions and even non-religions like Marxism. Now you could argue that Marxism can arise only because Christianity already sets the stage. However I think this is biasing things too much to a Eurocentric view of civilization. > Burkean conservatism and its attendant social practices has its place, but > the "higher purpose" is absent. Clinical. Behaviorist. A utilitarian morality > that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Darwinism speaks > the same language, and it looks like its shelf-life will be limited. Their > fates are determined by the entropy of self-interest. I’m not sure that’s true. I think Burkeanism can be reduced to “don’t change too fast and too radically because of unintended consequences.” Higher purposes seem orthogonal to that concern. ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
