[lit-ideas] Re: SOS - The Self in Moral Space
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 07:12:57 -0500
LH:
>> Mike Geary for example has a Constellation of Absolute Presuppositions
>> within which God does not exist. He (I assume) believes this absolutely. <<
For the record, let's just say that I'd be immensely surprised if any of the
notions of God as promulgated by any religion known to me turned out to be the
case. Whether there's some kind of "ultimate reality," well, I suspect there
probably is. Maybe it's Energy, whatever that is. Or maybe it's the big bad
Void. I do not believe in God the Guy, God the Doctrine, God the Ghost, God
the Good, God the Giver, God the Prosecutor, God the Pissed-Off, God the
Thinker, God the Go-Go Girl or any facsimile thereunto, thereof, or thereforth.
The problem is I can't use the word 'God' to talk about "ultimate reality"
because 'God' doesn't have any meaning to me and I have no idea what "ultimate
reality" means either. That's about as absolute as I can get.
Mike Geary
in Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: SOS - The Self in Moral Space
I read Collingwood's The Idea of History back in 1996. In it Collingwood
argued that the historian could never expect to divest himself of all of his
own presuppositions, but should strive to be aware of them and set them aside
when writing history. He should strive to assume the Constellation of Absolute
Presuppositions of the Time and people he was writing about. He should strive
to write as though he was in that time and place. In 2002 I also read Louis
Mink's Mind, History & Dialectic: The Philosophy of R. G. Collingwood. I
mention the dates I read these books because I may not be remembering something
quite right, but I don't have the impression that Collingwood was intending the
"absolute presuppositions" as being objectively absolute. Rather the person or
groups of people functioned as though their Constellations were absolute. They
believed them absolutely. Mike Geary for example has a Constellation of
Absolute Presuppositions within which God does not exist. He (I assume)
believes this absolutely. In Phil Enns Constellation of Absolute
Presuppositions God does exist and he believes (I assume) that absolutely.
I don't know if Taylor picks up the idea of Framework and expands on it later
on. My impression is that Collingwood's emphasis in regard to his
Constellation is upon the individual although he doesn't exclude larger groups
of people. Taylor on the other hand emphasizes larger more pervasive systems
of belief. At the present time Collingwood seems slightly more congenial. He
wouldn't object if my Constellation of Absolute Presuppositions included the
belief that one ought to become a Citizen Soldier if there is a need but when
the war is over, it's okay to go back to school and do something else and
forget about soldiering for the most part. I can be a Christian. I can study
and have various ideas about philosophy, history and poetry and have them all
in my rather unique Constellation.
Taylor's Frameworks seem a little more strongly built with more distance
between them. Collingwood as I recall would be content with my collection of
presuppositions as they are, but Taylor would be interested in imposing an
structure upon them. I was interested in his comment on Page 45: "The Puritan
wondered whether he was saved. The question was whether he was called or not.
If called, he was 'justified'. But if justified, he might still be a long way
from being 'sanctified': this latter was a continuous process, a road that he
could be more or less advanced on. My claim is that this isn't peculiar to
Puritan Christianity; but that all frameworks permit of, indeed, place us
before an absolute question of this kind, framing the context in which we ask
the relative questions about how near or far we are from the good."
I don't have any problem with Taylor's Framework concept as long as I can be
all the things I am. I am a Christian, a Marine, a Poet, a novelist, a free
diver, a hiker, a dog fancier, a Conservative, a Liberal-Democrat, a Common
Reader of philosophy, history, anthropology etc. If Taylor insists on jamming
me into just one of his Frameworks I am going to feel uncomfortable. On the
other hand, Collingwood, if memory serves me, would be content to let me
assemble my own set of absolute presuppositions and call it my Constellation if
I like.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
