Customer Reviews

The Philosophy of Loyalty (Vanderbilt Library of American Philosophy)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Josiah Royce was one of America's leading philosophers at the turn of the century, and the son of Sarah Royce, whose memoir of the Gold Rush days in California is a classic in its own right. Though Royce is usually identified as an idealist (especially evident in early books such as The Spirit of Modern Philosophy and The World and the Individual), his mature philosophy took a turn toward a more naturalistic approach. In The Philosophy of Loyalty, Royce argued that the natural phenomenon of ordinary loyalty to friends and family would, in the proper environment, blossom into a moral commitment to promote "loyalty to loyalty", or to the broadest and most comprehensive conception of human community. This suggestion is explored at considerably greater length in The Problem of Christianity, where Royce argues the idea of the Church is the singular philosophical contribution of the Christian tradition, rather than its supernaturally oriented theologies. The Philosophy of Loyalty is an essential read for anyone interested in philosophy circa 1900, and would be of interest to those searching for a way to combine the universalizing elements of Kantian ethics with the appeal of a theory that emphasizes personal loyalty and place bound elements.

If you're reading this book, here are some things you already know: Royce is considered to be America's great idealist. He was a professor at Harvard at the same time as the great William James, and suffered from a profound inferiority complex. He mixed his "teutonic metaphysics" with appropriate doses of Christianity-inspired ethics. You'll get treated to all these things in this book.

Royce has fallen completely out of fashion since the 1960s due mostly to the modern academy embracing relativism rather than to Royce's lack of intellectual profundity. But if we dig deep enough, is Royce really that intellectually profound? Idealism always tends towards a "first cause" and "final conclusion" type of structure. It's the nature of that way of thinking, by definition. Royce abandons profound and critical exploration of his theses frequently by building his arguments around what he believes to be immutable concepts which, frankly, leave one wondering how a man of such intelligence can fall for something so simplistic. Basically, what you have here is Royce defending his idealism against the Pragmatists' relativism by suggesting that "loyalty to loyalty" is the be-all-and-end-all of ethics. Men (and women) act the way they do, and SHOULD act the way they do based on their commitment to a beloved "cause." Men (and women) will rally around good causes and reject bad ones. Most critical readers are going to asks themselves, "Can it really be that simple?" In short, I don't buy it. And you'll know if you buy it from the introduction. From then on out, Royce will either further convince you with his defense, or you'll become bored with the monotony of it.