Josiah Royce (1855–1916)

Good but heavy going. Some chapters had me completely engaged while others were difficult to get through. The concept of the book was what drew me in. Royce intended this to be an exploration of the universal source of religious insight. He mentions Christianity and Buddhism, but no others. This is not a problem in itself, but Royce was a man of his time and culture so much of the language used is steeped in Christianity. My issue with this was when words, such as salvation, are used they call to mind specific Christian concepts which I felt overshadowed Royce's message. Glad I read it and I'm interested in reading more of Josiah Royce's books.k… (meer)

Josiah Royce (1855-1916), one of the first American philosophers, has largely disappeared from view. He started as a student of pragmatist William James, but then clearly went his own way, reconnecting with the idealistic tradition. This is also evident from this publication, the result of 7 lectures that Royce gave in 1911. In it he quotes William James several times, especially his ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’. According to James, religion is primarily an individual experience, not a social one, as the French sociologist Emile Durkheim had argued. Royce contradicts that: individual experiences are certainly important, but the whole domain of the social is at least as important. Rightly so.
What will shock many believers is that Royce rejects the importance of the factor of revelation or mystical experience, but then mainly on logical-philosophical grounds. It is therefore not surprising that Royce's strongest emphasis is that reason can also be an important source of religious insight. “Reason is the power to see widely and steadily and connectedly,” he writes. Insight into the greater context is the pre-eminent way for him to arrive at the truth, thus connecting with the divine, and also inspiring our actions. It is an absolutely valid reasoning for me.
But at the same time it exposes a weakness in Royce's argument: he looks at things very cerebrally, which is natural for a philosopher, but he runs the risk of covering only part of the human experience. To begin with, Royce has limited the basis of what religious experiences are. For him, it is the insight people have into their own failing, into the ‘human condition’, which they inevitably link with the desire for salvation, a salvation that can only come from something super/out-of-human. In my opinion, this starting point almost automatically brings Royce to his views on the rationalist input. In a sense that seems to make him guilty of reductionism, in order to be able to easily prove his rationalist thesis.
Another weakness is the way he formulates things: these are lectures, so the accessibility in itself is quite high. But this is a text that is more than a century old, and that is also noticeable in the sometimes archaic turns of phrase, and the still very complicated reasoning. Royce is also extremely careful, clearly to spare his audience, and that also sometimes makes for very roundabout reasoning. In short: this is a very interesting text, but definitely too difficult for the average reader.… (meer)