Vatic: James & RWE as Public/Professional Philosophers

[ish mailian]

When, and if you or anybody reads the essay, note that James,
according to the author, pushed back against the imperial ego, the
personal, individual experience of the world, favoring a more
pluralistic approach. But this is baby step next to Peirce. For Peirce
will dispense with the personal, song of the self, the bold I, as in
"I Celebrate Myself" and, as a man of mathematics and science, tweek
Empiricism, Radically. But it is not only a matter of perspective,
personal or scientific (objective) that distinguishes Peirce from
James, RWE, Whitman, ontologically, Peirce is traditional Aristotelian
Scholastic, his Pragmatism is closer to Dewey's than to James's.

More on this later,

Peace
Ish

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:47 AM ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I learn a lot of our List here, from Mark, a great deal. Recently he
> used a word I rarely use myself or see in print: vatic. Not sure of
> it, I checked its etymology and usage and I like the word much.
>
> 1620s, "poet or bard," specifically "Celtic divinely inspired poet"
> (1728), from Latin vates "sooth-sayer, prophet, seer," from a Celtic
> source akin to Old Irish faith "poet," Welsh gwawd "poem," from PIE
> root *wet- (1) "to blow; inspire, spiritually arouse" (source also of
> Old English wod "mad, frenzied," god-name Woden; see wood (adj.)).
> Hence vaticination "oracular prediction" (c. 1600).
>
> I have not moved on from Peirce and Pynchon, but I am, as Emerson
> would have it, Circling the subject.
>
> Back to James and RWE and Hinduism.
> Much has been written about James and RWE.
> Here, for those interested, is an excellent essay by Cotkin on the
> two, it treats the Vatic.
>
> Ralph Waldo Emerson & William James as Public Philosophers By GEORGE COTKIN
>
>
>
> https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1025&context=hist_fac
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ish