[MD] still going?

[Adrie Kintziger]

>
> Hello David.

This whole case is something from long ago.I have to admit,at that time i
did not provide john with this link or the comparision between these
Gifford lectures.But i did inform him about their rivalry, opposing views
and the underlaying field of tension between the two.I did this in a very
rude way.
I told John that he could not have Royce on a pedestal because of his
position about the absolute as i recall it.
But this was long ago.

Would this case be interesting to reconcider?,The evidence is not
convincing.
Indeed, the battle of the absolute,the quest for the 'Absolute knower' that
is paramount in Royce's developments would place this discussion into the
arena of theism again as it did in the time of these battles.Royce was not
an idiot, but he was a religious idealist;given the frame of time and the
location
this was not abnormal,not even today, but kept some insights confined in
the medieval period.

It would be a backpedalling, a run down the hill without chain on he
bicycle.
i don't think that it would be interesting to try to find the shortcut to
paradise.

paradise=>paradise=>paradise=> or <=paradise<=paradise <=paradise, this was
the witty part;sorry some pun intended.


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.

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