[MD] still going?

Fri Feb 5 09:03:02 PST 2016

Hello , David.

Yes, one of my biggest concerns is exactly the blending of  in of
fallibilism
as a key argument to maintain god's presence in the house of philosophy.
It is true altogether that we cannot prove that god does not exist, hence
he 'does 'exist or to say the least, fallibilism as a postulate (if
accepted) allows
the creator to stay on top of the pyramid.
But in this instance,one has to accept,--fallibilism as true, and
fallibilism as a
postulated guarantee not only that we are wrong to deny the creator'
story,..
but also that we live with the wrong a priori's.

It did not take me much time to find that Royce, indeed is using fallibilism
to maintain the theistic stance.
It took me less then 10 minutes to keep Auxier against the light to find out
he gives bible classes in his free time.But using this as an argument
against
John's apparant will to devote him would make this case moot.

My personal perspective on fallibilism in general is derived from logic, if
fallibilism is true,then fallibilism itself is probably wrong.
However this does not mean that fallibilism is not a genuine and solid
analytical knife, if handled in skilled hands.Roye apparently understood
true/untrue false/correct as 'wrong' and 'mistaken' but if this is the
case, then the denotation is fighting with the connotation, and ths?e game
becomes a mindfuck.I find it rather strange that he attempted to repaint
the mona lisa so to speak.

But regardless of these moot-events,David , in your opinion, should i take
the effort to read and study some work  of Royce,just for the sake of my
knowledge of philosophy, or lack of it? Is there value to discover, new
insights or things that were left behind to easy?

Adrie.

2016-02-05 16:41 GMT+01:00 david <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>:

>
> Adrie quoted Wikipedia to dispute John's claims:
>
>
> "His publication in 1885 of The Religious Aspect of Philosophy
> ...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, from the simplest
> impressions to the most valuable beliefs, would be for most if not all of
> us utterly impossible”. (see The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, p. 324)"
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
>
> Since Royce was offering fallibilism as "a new proof for the existence of
> God" and "the necessity of objective reference of our ideas", his
> fallibilism is very, very different from the fallibilism of Pragmatists
> like James and Pirsig. I think it's fair to say that Pirsig is NOT offering
> theism or objectivity. James, Dewey, and Pirsig are quite explicit in their
> rejection of SOM and even James, the most religion-friendly of the three,
> wrote his Varieties of Religious Experience in order to DISPUTE the
> religious claims made by Royce.
>
>
> From the Stanford Encyclopedia:
>
> "Royce and James had always disagreed deeply concerning the proper
> understanding of religious phenomena in human life. When James delivered
> the Gifford Lectures in 1901 and 1902, he directed many arguments against
> Royce's idealism, though he did not there target his friend by name.
> James's lectures, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience, were
> a popular and academic success . Royce believed that James, who had never
> been regularly affiliated with an established church or religious
> community, had in that work placed too much emphasis on the extraordinary
> religious experiences of extraordinary individuals. Royce's first education
> was into a strongly Protestant world view, he always retained a respect for
> the conventions of organized Christianity, and his writings exhibit a
> consistent and deep familiarity with Scripture. He sought a philosophy of
> religion that could help one understand and explain the phenomena of
> ordinary religious faith as experienced by communities of ordinary people.
> There was a deeper difference between them, as well, and it centered on a
> metaphysical point. Royce's 1883 insight concerning the Absolute was at
> bottom a religious insight. Contrary to the open-ended pluralism and
> pragmatism of James, Royce was convinced that the object and source of
> religious experience was an actual, infinite, and superhuman being."
>
>
>
> Since Pirsig was suspicious of James for trying to sneak religion in
> through the back door into philosophy, imagine what he'd think of Royce's
> "respect of the conventions of organized Christianity" and his stance
> "contrary to the open-ended pluralism and pragmatism of James".
>
>
>
> Like I keep saying, trying to make this Idealistic religious fanatic into
> a Pirsigian is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Why,
> why, why does John keep preaching this nonsense against all evidence and
> reason? This covert theism is bullshit and cannot be sustained without a
> huge dose of dishonesty, or ignorance, or both.
>
>
>
> It's fine if a person insists on being an Idealist, an Absolutist, or a
> advocate of conventional Christianity but it makes no sense to paint Pirsig
> or Pragmatism in these colors. The keys concepts of these two opposed views
> will crash into each other like two trains heading in opposite directions.
> It's worse than a pointless waste of time because, frankly, it's so
> obviously stupid. It makes me sad and angry that John is allowed to
> continue raining his bullshit on Pirsig and James.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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