[MD] still going?

Adrie Kintziger parser666 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 3 12:12:39 PST 2016


I took a fast snip from pedia.Lack of time today.

wiki/Royce

The former of these contained a new proof for the existence of God based
upon the reality of error.

All errors are judged to be erroneous in comparison to some total truth,
Royce argued,

and we must either hold ourselves infallible or accept that even our errors
are evidence of a world of truth.

Having made it clear that idealism depends upon postulates and proceeds
hypothetically, Royce defends the necessity of objective reference of our
ideas to a universal whole within which they belong, for without these
postulates, “both practical life and the commonest results of theory, etc,
etc....



The reason  to reflect this and compare it with your statement about
royce's fallibilism is not to deny royce's commitment to fallibilism , or

your claim that we have to accept fallibilism as a given fact but i have
other concerns.


This is not fallibilism.

The claim royce is making in the snippet part is in fact no form of
fallibilism.

The term error from the claim is to be regarded as mistake, erroneus,

we couldd be wrong!!! of course we could! i agree, but this is deviating
from fallibilism as Royce is taking the forest for the trees.It's a form of
moral realism.

Fallibilism can only argue with the correct terms, otherwise its a mindfuck.


adrie




2016-02-02 21:27 GMT+01:00 John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>:

> Adrie,
>
> You don't have to read all of Royce, any more than I do.  We all rely
> upon philosophology and authority to some extent or another.  Even
> though, authority has been dominated by a SO metaphysical outlook!
> It's a conundrum, indeed.
>
> I think together we form a community of interpretation and each view
> is an alternative "view of the elephant" that has value and shouldn't
> be rejected.  Does this mean just any old thing?  No.  It's tricky, I
> admit.  Time and communication are the only way it can be made clear,
> who is an individual in the community, and who is not.    Before, I
> felt like you were throwing out Royce's insight and contribution to
> Pragmatism.  And if you don't believe me, search on Royce, in the
> Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy.  It's online, you know.
>
> Ok, on the absolute.  Royce definitely used the term, but he used it
> within a purely intellectual framework - that is, whether or not any
> absolutes exist, we use certain pre-suppositions for rational
> discourse - his fundamental argument was for the unquestionable
> existence of error.  What is error?  He asks, a whole lot of lights
> dawn upon his thinking, akin to Pirsig's rhetorical query, What is
> Quality?  If you think about those terms in relation to life, you see
> that they are the same question.
>
> Now, Royce "used" absolute, in a way that doesn't fly well today, but
> Professor Auxier make a  very pertinent point for those that think the
> term "absolute" in Royce means rigid, Victorian values.  And Pirsig
> himself used the term synomously in his Coppleston Annotations,
> disliking only the connotations.    So it's not such a far-fetched
> idea that Royce was himself a pre-Pirsigian in his own way.   Auxier
> brings a lot of support to his thesis, which I can supply and offer
> footnotes and all that academic stuff.
>
> " As I have said in Chapter1, and have shown by example, Royce's moral
> temporalism developed partly as an answer, philosophically and
> religiously, to moral problems posed by the annexation of  California
> and Royce was working on that history of California and this argument
> about error at the same time.  Royce's history of California was an
> application of his dramatic or even romantic ontology to the problem
> of historiography.  ... it was the collection of solutions to these
> problems of self-deception, ignorance, and error that provided the
> impetus, the direction, and the goal of Royce's hypothetical or
> fictional ontology, in all of its particulars.
>
> The cultivation of the inner life he called for as a remedy to the
> mis-behavior of the Bear Flag "Heroes" is nothing other than the
> cultivation of the norms of reflection, especially as the bear upon
> practical life.  The development of external boldness, decisiveness,
> cleverness, and the virtues praised by the "mock eloquent cant" of the
> euphoric masses is meaningless without the firm association of these
> virtues with excellent reflection upon our experience, and such
> reflection begins with the idea that WE COULD ALWAYS BE IN ERROR.
> This is Royce's  FALLIBILISM.
>
> The fact that it has not been recognized in the literature on both
> Royce and the other pragmatists that his argument from error is a
> statement of Royce's commitment to fallibilism, simply boggles my
> mind.  What could be more obvious?
>
> And yet, supposedly intelligent people charge Royce with absolutism,
> in the very sense contradicted by his argument from error?"
>
> Auxier, TWL, 68
>
>
> Man, Adrie, you can imagine what a relief it was for me to read those
> words, because maybe all the academics with their reliance upon
> authority might not have seen this, but I sure did, in the Grass
> Valley Library, so long ago.  But I was prepped by Pirsig, so I knew
> the full significance of Royce's argument for error.
>
> But pardon me while I pat myself on the back.  Nobody else is going to.
> heh.
>
>
>
> > But , David , as i do not have the intention to piss off John further
> than
> > neccesary i would happily agree with him to read and discuss everyting
> > about Royce should John make the effort not to pursue the shortcut to
> > paradise,but even then, i would make it obligatory for me to read all
> > Royce's work wich would take me long.... and i do not know if i can spare
> > the time or the effort.
> >
>
>
> I think a bigger and more important task than convincing Pirsigians
> that Royce was a Pragmatist  but convincing Pragmatists that Pirsig
> was one,
>
> Thanks for your patience with my obsessions,
>
> John
>
>
> > Probably were clean about that one..
> >
> >
> > Feel free to talk about oter thing anyway, i did hurt my knee very badly
> > about a month ago and i need some rest.
> >
> > Adrie
> >
> > 2016-01-31 17:39 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:
> >
> >>
> >> Adrie Kintziger said to john carl:
> >>
> >>
> >> ...It is true that i defended the case that James and Royce were in fact
> >> enemy's but irl de facto friends. My point of view was partially derived
> >> from the stanford entry about Royce (
> >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/royce/) and after some investigation
> on
> >> this page, the Gifford lectures given by Royce as "the world and the
> >> individual", and subsequently thereafter William James "the variaties of
> >> religious experience" - as the lead on the stanford page suggested i
> took
> >> the effort to compare the two views, and i had to agree with the remarks
> >> on
> >> the stanford page under the header "life", if you want/like to find
> them.
> >> I
> >> did not invent my point. I honestly found that the narrator was very
> >> correct in his analysis.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> dmb says:
> >>
> >> The Stanford Encyclopedia is considered to be among the most credible
> >> academic sources, right up there with philosophy Journals and University
> >> books. And there are many good reasons to draw the conclusion that James
> >> and Royce had very different views. It's utterly contemptible to dismiss
> >> SEP as if it were just some guy's opinion or to dismiss the basic facts
> >> for
> >> being the result of "a wrong-headed academic bias".  This is just the
> >> commonly heard anti-intellectual attitude that says "my ignorance is
> just
> >> as good as your knowledge". "For some reason," John says, "I didn't fit
> >> in
> >> with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Dogmatic Authority, and so not worthy
> >> of
> >> further discussion or interest" and, he says, "I was ignored and
> vilified
> >> as a troll".
> >>
> >>
> >> William James said that he and Royce loved each other like "Siamese
> >> twins," but it's also true that they were opposed philosophically and
> >> that
> >> James said he wanted to destroy the absolute, wanted its "scalp". Royce
> >> was
> >> an advocate of Idealism and Monism while James was a Pluralist and a
> >> Radical Empiricist. James spells out the difference is one of his essays
> >> on
> >> Radical Empiricism, a piece called "Absolutism and Empiricism," and the
> >> life-long debate between the two men is somewhat famously known as "the
> >> battle of the Absolute".
> >>
> >>
> >> "James abused Hegel merrily," his biography says. 'Of all mental
> >> turpitude
> >> and rottennesses,' he thought, Hegelianism takes the cake. 'The worst of
> >> it
> >> is,' James told Hall, it makes an absolute sterility where it comes.'
> >> James
> >> wrote Royce in February 1880, groaning that 'my ignorant prejudice
> >> against
> >> all Hegelians except Hegel himself grows wusser and wusser. Their
> >> Sacerdotal airs! And their sterility!' ...He told Xenos Clark in
> December
> >> 1880, 'The Hegelian wave which seems to me only another desperate
> attempt
> >> to make a short cut to paradise, is deluging the College this year and
> >> will, if I am not mistake, completely sterilize its votaries'. ...He
> >> added
> >> his by now reflexist reaction to Hegel ('fundamentally rotten and
> >> charlatanish'), but went on to concede that 'as a reaction against
> >> materialistic evolutionism it has a use, only this evolution is is
> >> fertile
> >> while Hegelism is absolutely sterile'." -- Robert Richardson, William
> >> James
> >> in the Maelstrom of American Modernism, page
> >>   214.
> >>
> >>
> >> There are some points in common, of course, but these are very different
> >> visions, from different schools of philosophy, held by people with very
> >> different temperaments. I see no good reason to pretend they are similar
> >> or
> >> compatible and l see lots of good reasons for being clear about the
> >> distinctions between them. Otherwise it's just the philosophical version
> >> of
> >> pounding a square peg into a round hole. You're only going to damage one
> >> or
> >> both of them in the effort. It's wreckless vandalism and if John feels
> >> persecuted by this obvious criticism, then he has a problem that cannot
> >> be
> >> solved by anyone but him.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> dmb
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > parser
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
>
>
> --
> "finite players
> play within boundaries.
> Infinite players
> play *with* boundaries."
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser



More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list