John, Stephen,
I often am too quick with judgements. Now I agree with John, that Abbot probably was too harsh against religions, and was alienating people. Instead of just rejecting dogmas and myths, I guess it always is better to refute dogmas by redefining myths from dogmas towards parables, an
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
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 s
John, List,
I think, in each religion there always was a contest, often eruping into fight, between the spiritual and the prophetist fractions. Both have different gods: The god of the spirituals is, like in John´s gospel, understandable for us: Logos. The god of the prophetists/ fundamentalists
Hi John. First I added this to my trove on Abbot on Medium.
https://medium.com/everything-comes/f-e-abbots-libel-case-against-josiah-royce-7e8dd3012457
The complete text of Abbott's defense against Josiah Royce for what appears
to have been a rather complete misunderstanding of him on Royce's part.
On 3/2/2018 8:25 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:> Entirely delightful with a
salutary flourish at the end.
The most salutary suicide I have ever encountered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ellingwood_Abbot
That provides some good background about F. E. Abbot, and it's
significant that Peirce
