[MD] still going?

[John Carl]

Adrie,



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Adrie Kintziger <parser666 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I took a fast snip from pedia.Lack of time today.


My favorite source for Royce expertise is Randall Auxier.  He told me
he wrote the wikipedia entry on Royce, so you and I are on the same
page so far...

>
>
> 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....
>

Jc:  I'd like to emphasize that bit, right there.  Royce's philosophy
is labeled "Idealism" because to SOM-ist materialism, if your reality
isn't grounded in objective fact, then it's "merely in your head".  A
wide-ranging collections of "paintings" go by that term and I'd say
the MoQ belongs to that collection also.  But by making it clear that
"hypothetical" is ALL we can ever hope for, Royce delves into the
nature of "what is a hypothesis" and for this, gets branding by
SOMists as "a mere idealist".


>
>
> 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.

Ok, I'm quoting from a book by the same guy that you're quoting in
wikipedia and I assure you that he is as logically consistent as a
human can be.  I've known him to be wrong, but not inconsistent like
that, so I'd have to side with Randy on this one.  what is your
definition of Fallibilism?

While I'm waiting, I'll see what the interwebs say.  (like looking
into a crystalline silica ball...

Interesting.

Fallibilism (from Medieval Latin: fallibilis, "liable to err") is the
philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their
beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world, and yet
still be justified in holding their incorrect beliefs.

fallibilists argue that absolute certainty about knowledge is impossible.

Unlike skepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our
knowledge; we need not have logically conclusive justifications for
what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical
knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we
take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some
fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true
(such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain
fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these
axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of
error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans
Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty,
even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen
trilemma.

----

Ok, I don't think you're arguing fallabilism, you're arguing whether
Royce actually held that view.


>
>
> 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
>

Ok, you're not persuaded by the snippets provided, nor the
philosophological conclusion of the guy who has studied it the most
comprehensively, but according to wiki:

"As a formal doctrine, fallibilism is most strongly associated with
Charles Sanders Peirce, John Dewey, and other pragmatists,"


Was Royce considered an "other pragamatist."  He certainly was at the
time.  He labeled himself, thus.  And scholarly research in my silica
ball pulls up:

  Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Josiah Royce and John Dewey
are the usual  actors in the drama called “Classical American
Philosophy,” and their significance as  philosophers is rightfully
captured by John McDermott: “They represent one of the most creative
clusters in the history of philosophy. 1    I believe part of the
creativity comes from the rich  interchange and relationships between
the four.  2  These four philosophers shared significant  intellectual
as well as personal relationships. Peirce and Royce were deeply
interested in the  logic and science of their time and both developed
doctrines of a triadic form of knowledge  known as interpretation.
Royce was the first person to sift through Peirce’s papers and he
published the first post-mortem assessment of the significance of
those papers and of Peirce’s  thought in general (Royce and Kernan,
1916, The close relationship between William James is  well known to
many but I believe is best summarized by James’ own words: “Royce and
I love  each other like Siamese twins”

So I wonder why it's hard for you to admit the truth of my assertion.
It seems to me that all the evidence is on my side of the argument.

But then, I could be wrong.

John

>
>
>
> 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
> 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."