Randall Auxier On Josiah Royce
Together with Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, Josiah Royce (1855 -- 1916) formed part of the "Golden Age of American philosophy" at around the turn of the 20th Century. With the rise of analytic philosophy, Royce fell into obscurity for many years. In recent years, some philosophers have shown an increased interest in Royce. Randall Auxier, Professor of Philosophy at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, is the General Editor of an upcoming new edition of "The Works of Josiah Royce" and the editor of the important "Library of Living Philosophers" series. He has written extensively on Royce, including this, his latest book, "Time, Will and Purpose: Living Ideas from the Philosophy of Josiah Royce" (2013).
It is valuable to consider the reasons underlying the demise of interest in Royce and its recent revival. Royce was known for his rationalism and philosophy of absolute idealism, both of which fell out of favor with the rise of scientific philosophy. Most philosophers, including Auxier, currently interested in Royce do not understand themselves as philosophical absolutists or rationalists. They do, however, have an interest in reviving a form of metaphysics in philosophy which analytic philosophy in their view cast aside to its detriment. Those interested in Royce tend to think both analytic philosophy and European existential philosophy have reached dead-ends, the former because of its exclusive focus on science and the latter for its subjectivity and lack of rigor. Thinkers interested in Royce tend to have a strong interest in religion. They also tend to emphasize the many pragmatic elements in Royce, as part of a broader philosophical revivial of interest in American pragmatism.
Auxier's interest in Royce seems to me roughly in accordance with the above overview. Auxier states that his book has two large goals: 1. presenting Royce's thought because its understanding is "desirable for its own sake" and 2. presenting "some of Royce's best ideas in forms that will facilitate their active application to contemporary life and thought -- living ideas." Auxier does not try to defend the alleged rationalism and absolute idealism of Royce that resulted in exclusion from the philosophical mainstream for many years. Instead he does several things, First and most importantly, Auxier tries to read Royce closely in order to argue that the rationalist/absolutist reading of Royce was a mistaken interpretation, perpetuated in part by James, Dewey, and other philosophers who failed to understand what Royce was trying to do. In other words, Auxier offers a rereading of Royce. Second, Auxier tries to draw "living ideas" from the body of Royce's thought that he finds valuable and important without necessarily committing to Royce's philosophy as a whole. Auxier also intersperses his discussion of Royce with his own thoughts, with many digressive and frequently polemical passages, and with comparison of Royce's thought with that of his contemporaries.
The many discussions of Royce's contemporaries are among the best aspects of the book. Auxier has insightful things to say about William James and the partial confluence of his thinking with Royce's late in their careers. Auxier sees both Royce and James as part of the American philosophical school known as Personalism, with close ties to idealism of a non-absolutist type. This is not the usual understanding of either Royce or James, but I think there is a great deal to it. Auxier also devotes attention to William Hocking whose book "The Meaning of God in Human Experience" is today too little read.He also discusses other American idealist philosophers who are too little known, including George Howison, whose thought greatly influenced Royce's statement of his own position, the personalist Borden Parker Bowne, and James Creighton, who became the founder of the American Philosophical Association.
In a chapter titled "Ontology", Auxier gives the basics of both his interpretation of Royce and of the philosopher's "living ideas" by developing what he terms Royce's "fictional" ontology. Auxier tries to do many things. He argues that for Royce, ethical rather than metaphysical inquiry in the primary goal of philosophy, thus aligning Royce in part with contemporary thinkers such as, say, Emanuel Levinas. Auxier discusses what he sees as methodology which differs from the methodology of "bad" metaphysics as practiced through the 19th Century. Auxier develops what he terms the "unholy trinity" of logic, psychology, and metaphysics under which philosophers futilely claimed to be able to describe something about the nature of reality. Auxier tries to break this trinity by arguing that for Royce philosophy proceeded in a different fashion. For Royce philosophy was reflective. One took experience, ethics, science, and other aspects, and reflected upon it by trying to find underlying ideas that would give it unity and purpose. These ideas developed temporally -- from individuals living in past, present, and future, rather that spacially or substantively. The philosophy resulting from reflection was not offered as absolutistic but rather as helping to guide reflection on experience and they were fallibilistic rather than necessary. Auxier's primary argument is that Royce's understood philosophy in this manner, rather than as a system of metaphysical necessities. It is a large, complex, questionable claim that Auxier fleshes out and develops throughout his book.
Besides developing Royce's thought as a "fictional ontology" Auxier develops several other "living ideas" of Royce, including temporalism and process philosophy. The book develops to consider what Royce called in his book "The World and the Individual" the "fourth conception" of being: "to be is to be related to a whole." Royce rejects atomistic individualism and nominalism. For Auxier, Royce's "living ideas", include his understanding of personality and individuation, and, more broadly, Royce's understanding of community. A person develops his own individuality only in living in a shared community with others. Royce developed the concept of the "Beloved Community" which was later adopted by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Broadly speaking, I thought Auxier's book succeeded in its goals in showing that Royce was important and that his philosophical ideas were often insightful and valuable. I was not convinced by Auxier's analysis of Royce's methodology or claimed ontology. Furthermore, the book is somewhat episodic. As Auxier admits, his book stops short of a full exposition, even of some or Royce's important books and teachings, on grounds that they have been covered adequately by other writers. I found large portions of the book harsh and unduly polemical in tone in what I conceive is a markedly un-Roycean way as far as the nature of American culture, politics, and history are concerned. I reread Royce's essay, "On the Limitations of the Thoughtful Public in America". Auxier does not discuss this essay, and I find it an antidote to much of what I see as his frequently intemperate criticism. Auxier is also scornful about many of his fellow philosophers, although his book shows that he has learned more from both the analytic and continental schools than he is ready to admit. In sum, the book is worthwhile but erratic in its writing and argument with sections of great insight alternating with portions of unclarity and diatribe.
I have been studying and learning from Royce for several years for the basic reasons developed earlier in this review. I learned a great deal from Auxier. This book will appeal to readers with a strong interest and background in American philosophy and with a willingness to engage both with Royce and with Auxier. I thank the publisher, Open Court, for giving me the opportunity to read and review this book.
Robin Friedman
