Readings Newsletter
Become a Readings Member to make your shopping experience even easier.
Sign in or sign up for free!
You’re not far away from qualifying for FREE standard shipping within Australia
You’ve qualified for FREE standard shipping within Australia
The cart is loading…
This title is printed to order. This book may have been self-published. If so, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content. In the main most books will have gone through the editing process however some may not. We therefore suggest that you be aware of this before ordering this book. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any returns unless they are faulty. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Dr. Jarvis kindly invited me to undertake this Foreword. According to his suggestion, I here intend to complement his work by creating a context for it. To do so, prior notice of a common misrepresentation of Royce and of his contemporary relevance seems needed, before briefly sketching his biography and interest in religion. Finally, to orient the reader to the present study, I will point out Royce’s main works and the spirit of the man. In the year 2150 A. D. , what will people be saying about Harvard? If the reported prediction of a self -effacing William James comes true, the common answer will be, Harvard? Oh, that’s the place where Royce taught.
And yet, now that almost a century has passed since Royce began teaching at Harvard, most Americans do not recognize the name Josiah Royce.
Of those who do, few know him as a significant American philosopher of community. And of these few, far fewer recall either that religious problems first drove Royce to philosophy or that he said such problems of all human interests, deserve our best efforts and our utmost loyalty.
1 Little wonder, then, that when Americans survey our classic philosophers-Peirce, James, Royce, Santayana, Dewey, Whitehead-few of them respond to Royce as the most explicitly and persistently religious philosopher of them all. Fortunately, however, popularity contests do not accurately weigh the merit of a philosopher.
$9.00 standard shipping within Australia
FREE standard shipping within Australia for orders over $100.00
Express & International shipping calculated at checkout
This title is printed to order. This book may have been self-published. If so, we cannot guarantee the quality of the content. In the main most books will have gone through the editing process however some may not. We therefore suggest that you be aware of this before ordering this book. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any returns unless they are faulty. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Dr. Jarvis kindly invited me to undertake this Foreword. According to his suggestion, I here intend to complement his work by creating a context for it. To do so, prior notice of a common misrepresentation of Royce and of his contemporary relevance seems needed, before briefly sketching his biography and interest in religion. Finally, to orient the reader to the present study, I will point out Royce’s main works and the spirit of the man. In the year 2150 A. D. , what will people be saying about Harvard? If the reported prediction of a self -effacing William James comes true, the common answer will be, Harvard? Oh, that’s the place where Royce taught.
And yet, now that almost a century has passed since Royce began teaching at Harvard, most Americans do not recognize the name Josiah Royce.
Of those who do, few know him as a significant American philosopher of community. And of these few, far fewer recall either that religious problems first drove Royce to philosophy or that he said such problems of all human interests, deserve our best efforts and our utmost loyalty.
1 Little wonder, then, that when Americans survey our classic philosophers-Peirce, James, Royce, Santayana, Dewey, Whitehead-few of them respond to Royce as the most explicitly and persistently religious philosopher of them all. Fortunately, however, popularity contests do not accurately weigh the merit of a philosopher.