[MD] Changes in 2011

[Andre Broersen]

John to Andre:

... to imply that James had the intention of "destroying" Royce has got to be one of the most ill-founded and outrageous claims I've read on this list.  They were good and true life-long friends.

Andre:
Yet, there it is John. And, yes, we've been at this before. James tentatively called one of his [Gifford] lectures 'Demolish Royce'.

John:
Evidently you think that it is the proper intellectual ploy to ignore the opposing side in a debate or otherwise fail to make an intelligent response, wait a period of time, and then make the same exact charges again.

Andre:
You, stubbornly keep on bringing this up John, despite the idea that you have countered it before. Royce's Absolute is not compatible with James' pragmatism or radical empiricism. Neither is it compatible with Pirsig's MOQ.

John:
I'd say Royce's further development of philosophy, called Absolute
Pragmatism,  answered this challenge but since that happened after Jame's
death, those who  rely upon authority alone to do their thinking for them
will never know.

Andre:
Well John, I did not actually sit in on the conversations between them two gentlemen. Neither did I sit on the stone wall with them. But quoting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
'In the end, however, Royce was a philosopher who worked within the intellectual context of Western Christianity. He maintains that only the Christian model of the loyal community successfully combines the true spirit of universal interpretation with an appreciation of the "infinite worth" of the individual as a unique member of the ideal Beloved Community, the Kingdom of Heaven  '.

John:
Royce has been ignored for a long time, but he's becoming more and more in vogue these days and I have plenty of opportunities to explore him with those more  open-minded than I find around
here.  Some people are excited by philosophical difference and discussion,some people are nauseated.  I know instinctively which side I'm on there.

Andre:
Hallelujah to you John.