Online research in philosophy

Two of Josiah Royce's lectures in Lectures on Modern Idealism concern the work of F. W. J. Schelling, the "poetic seer of splendid metaphysical visions" whom Royce considered "the prince of the romanticists."1 These lectures are titled "The Dialectical Method in Schelling" and "Schelling's Transcendental Idealism." In the former, Royce remarks that "there are two simple ways to avoid all dialectical complications. One is an easy way, viz., not to think at all. The other is a prudent way, viz., not (...) to confess your thoughts."2 But, Royce insists, philosophers (and Schelling, notably) attempt to "confess their contradictions, to live through them, and so, if may be, to get beyond them."3 In his second treatment of .. (shrink)

Loyalty is central to the philosophies of Confucius and Josiah Royce. In the case of Confucius, we see this significance in the emphasis placed in the Analects on zhong (“loyalty,” “other-regard,” or “dutifulness”) and xiao (“filial piety” or “filiality”). In the case of Royce, we see this significance in the emphasis placed on loyalty in The Philosophy of Loyalty. Moreover, in Confucius's and Royce's interactions with disciples and students, we witness appreciable loyalty, to their students and to their respective philosophies. (...) This article compares the teachings—in thought and action—of Confucius and Royce, highlighting the significance of loyalty therein. (shrink)

Introduction : the treachery and ambivalence of loyalty -- Loyalty, justice, virtue : contemporary debates -- The nature of loyalty -- Loyalty to loyalty -- Learning loyalty -- Loyalty and community -- Disloyalty -- Loyalty, disaster, business : contemporary applications -- Conclusion : the need for loyalty.

Contained among the Josiah Royce Papers, housed at the Harvard University Archives, are three unpublished lectures on the topic of loyalty delivered by Royce in Pittsburgh some time after the publication of The Philosophy of Loyalty in April 1908. The titles of the Pittsburgh Lectures are, respectively, “The Conflict of Loyalties,” “The Art of Loyalty,” and “Loyalty and Individuality.” The precise dates and location of these lectures has been the subject of longstanding uncertainty. Witness this sample of conjectures. Atop the (...) first page of “The Conflict of Loyalties,” one finds written in archivist Ronald A. Wells’s hand, “1908? 1910?” Royce’s student, Jacob Loewenberg—compiler of Royce’s posthumously published .. (shrink)

This essay investigates Josiah Royce's sustained interest in the Platonic dialogues by focusing not only on Royce's explicit commentary on Socrates and Plato but also on significant philosophical connections between Royce and these figures. In section 1, we explain the nature of loyalty according to Royce and how Socratic loyalty exemplifies Royce's ideas in both evident and surprising ways. In section 2, we claim that Royce's treatment of “lost causes” (particularly truth as a lost cause) relates to Socrates' dedication to (...) the logos; the Platonic dialogues are reinvestigated in order to make this point. In section 3, we explain the nature of “cause” both in Royce's thought and in the Platonic dialogues in order to see how loyalty to a cause culminates in the art of wise living—Socrates' philosophical practice. (shrink)

This article compares the ways in which the classic Western philosophical division between the private and public spheres is challenged by an apparently disparate pair of thinkers—Confucius and Jane Addams. It is argued that insofar as the public and private distinction is that between the sphere of the family and that outside of the family, Confucius and Addams offer ways of rethinking that distinction. While Confucius endorses a porous relation between these realms, Addams advocates a relation that fosters reconstructive transformation (...) of each the private and public spheres. Because Confucius and Addams both challenge the idea of a rigid separation between the private and public, while at the same time differing from one another in important ways, a comparative engagement of their views is performed, with the suggestion that Confucians might glean very much from Addams, while contemporary feminists might do the same from both she and Confucius. (shrink)