Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More Pragmatism, Not Less
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
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More Pragmatism, Not Less
Stephen - it's called The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, and states that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Edwina - Original Message - From: Stephen C. Rose To: Helmut Raulien Cc: Peirce List Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 12:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More Pragmatism, Not Less 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 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 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
