What do you think?
Rate this book
The Problem Of Christianity: The Christian Doctrine Of Life...
This book was originally published prior to 1923, and represents a reproduction of an important historical work, maintaining the same format as the original work. While some publishers have opted to apply OCR (optical character recognition) technology to the process, we believe this leads to sub-optimal results (frequent typographical errors, strange characters and confusing formatting) and does not adequately preserve the historical character of the original artifact. We believe this work is culturally important in its original archival form. While we strive to adequately clean and digitally enhance the original work, there are occasionally instances where imperfections such as blurred or missing pages, poor pictures or errant marks may have been introduced due to either the quality of the original work or the scanning process itself. Despite these occasional imperfections, we have brought it back into print as part of our ongoing global book preservation commitment, providing customers with access to the best possible historical reprints. We appreciate your understanding of these occasional imperfections, and sincerely hope you enjoy seeing the book in a format as close as possible to that intended by the original publisher.
486 pages, Paperback
First published June 6, 2001
5 people are currently reading
133 people want to read
About the author
Josiah Royce
403 books37 followersLife
Royce, born in Grass Valley, California on November 20, 1855. He was the son of Josiah and Sarah Eleanor (Bayliss) Royce, whose families were recent English emigrants, and who sought their fortune in the westward movement of the American pioneers in 1849. He received the B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley (which moved from Oakland to Berkeley during his matriculation) in 1875 where he later accepted an instructorship teaching English composition, literature, and rhetoric. After some time in Germany, where he studied with Hermann Lotze, the new Johns Hopkins University awarded him in 1878 one of its first four doctorates, in philosophy. At Johns Hopkins he taught a course on the history of German thought, which was “one of his chief interests” because he was able to give consideration to the philosophy of history.[1] After four years at the University of California, Berkeley, he went to Harvard in 1882 as a sabbatical replacement for William James, who was at once Royce's friend and philosophical antagonist. Royce's position at Harvard was made permanent in 1884 and he remained there until his death, September 14, 1916.
Historiography
Royce stands out starkly in the philosophical crowd because he was the only major American philosopher who spent a significant period of his life studying and writing history, specifically of the American West. “As one of the four giants in American philosophy of his time […] Royce overshadowed himself as historian, in both reputation and output” (Pomeroy, 2). During his first three years at Harvard, Royce taught many different subjects such as English composition, forensics, psychology and philosophy for other professors. Although he eventually settled into writing philosophy, his early adulthood was characterized by wide-ranging interests, during which he wrote a novel, investigated paranormal phenomena (as a skeptic), and published a significant body of literary criticism. Only as historian and philosopher did he distinguish himself. Royce spread himself too thin, however, and in 1888 suffered a nervous breakdown which required him to take a leave of absence from his duties.
Royce, born in Grass Valley, California on November 20, 1855. He was the son of Josiah and Sarah Eleanor (Bayliss) Royce, whose families were recent English emigrants, and who sought their fortune in the westward movement of the American pioneers in 1849. He received the B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley (which moved from Oakland to Berkeley during his matriculation) in 1875 where he later accepted an instructorship teaching English composition, literature, and rhetoric. After some time in Germany, where he studied with Hermann Lotze, the new Johns Hopkins University awarded him in 1878 one of its first four doctorates, in philosophy. At Johns Hopkins he taught a course on the history of German thought, which was “one of his chief interests” because he was able to give consideration to the philosophy of history.[1] After four years at the University of California, Berkeley, he went to Harvard in 1882 as a sabbatical replacement for William James, who was at once Royce's friend and philosophical antagonist. Royce's position at Harvard was made permanent in 1884 and he remained there until his death, September 14, 1916.
Historiography
Royce stands out starkly in the philosophical crowd because he was the only major American philosopher who spent a significant period of his life studying and writing history, specifically of the American West. “As one of the four giants in American philosophy of his time […] Royce overshadowed himself as historian, in both reputation and output” (Pomeroy, 2). During his first three years at Harvard, Royce taught many different subjects such as English composition, forensics, psychology and philosophy for other professors. Although he eventually settled into writing philosophy, his early adulthood was characterized by wide-ranging interests, during which he wrote a novel, investigated paranormal phenomena (as a skeptic), and published a significant body of literary criticism. Only as historian and philosopher did he distinguish himself. Royce spread himself too thin, however, and in 1888 suffered a nervous breakdown which required him to take a leave of absence from his duties.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 23, 2021
Overthrowing Power
Josiah Royce was a philosopher who wrote at a time when it was acceptable, among both philosophers and theologians, for a philosopher to mention the name God. This was a remnant of a thousand year tradition of ‘synthesis’ of all the strands of human inquiry. But this was also a tradition whose influence was to be severely curtailed by the intellectual as well as material trauma of the First World War. The war forms a sort of wall on the far side of which is the wreckage of the cultural importance of theology to the educated mind.
This situation is regrettable, among other reasons because the influence of theology has not declined with its demise from discussion among polite company. Rather theological ideas become hidden and therefore taken for granted and live their life as un-criticised presumption. Royce’s The Problem of Christianity is a subtle, sympathetic but merciless critique of a central complex of Christian thought involving the concepts of salvation, divine grace, and, most importantly, power. It seems to me that an attempt to recover that critique and its implications is worthwhile.
One of the oldest Christian heresies is the Pelagian, named after a fourth century British monk who had the temerity to suggest that the idea of original sin was bunk, that humans had free will and that through free will mankind could contribute to its own salvation. This displeased the likes of Augustine of Hippo who had him condemned at a church council. The heresy was confirmed as such throughout the history of the Church, through the Protestant Reformation, and by the most influential theologian of the 20th century, the Swiss Karl Barth.
The insistence on the inherent corruption of human free will, and on the absolute inability of mankind to contribute in even the smallest part to its own salvation might seem strange. True, the biblical pronouncements of St. Paul stated clearly that Jesus died so that we could be saved. But on the face of it, there appears no reason why the rest of us might not help just a bit through the emulation of Jesus’s sacrifice. A consistent message of the Old Testament - Abraham and Isaac being prime examples - is that one must choose to be chosen, that is, cooperate with a divine invitation.
The parallel Judaic concept of the Zachuth Avot, The Merit of the Fathers (Mothers were also included), for example, held that the Hebrew Patriarchs, through their faith and trust in God, had created a store of divine power which was available for the spiritual help of any Jew in need. But this store could be augmented at any time by the good deeds of anyone. In principle there seems no reason to deny the ‘new Israel’ a similar capability.
Moreover, Augustine’s intransigence led to a rather unfortunate implication, which has had a continuing, decidedly un-Christian effect: Predestination. If only God could decide the salvific fate of human beings; and if not all human beings are to be saved; then it is strictly a matter of the most obvious logic that God saves or condemns based solely on an inscrutable divine instinct. And since God is omniscient, he knows who he has saved or not from the beginning of time. To claim otherwise would be to impugn the unlimited power of God, who is the source of all power. QED.
So the absoluteness of divine power is apparently protected by the Augustinian doctrine. But, not coincidentally, so is another power, that of the Church. The power of God is conceived as an infinite reservoir of grace that has been filled by the sacrifice of Jesus. The sluice gates are controlled by the formal authority of the Church which dispenses this power through its sacraments to the remainder of the world. Only authorised members of the clergy are permitted to exercise this power of distribution, so the Church has a monopoly which it has ever since sought to strengthen and protect.
And this conception of divine power is not relevant only to the Church. In the year 800, Charlemagne is crowned the new Roman emperor by the pope in a ceremony by which he pointedly grants divine power conditionally to the civil authority. In 1066, the Conqueror, having established military control over England, claims every square inch of the country as his personal property to distribute among his followers as a matter of divinely ordained right. In 2016, Britain votes to ‘take back its sovereignty’ from the European Union. Sovereignty is an idea which means responsibility only to God. In every high court in the land there is an ornate plaque which declares ‘Dieu et Mon Droit’. Theological ideas have a very long reach indeed.
This, therefore, is The Problem of Christianity to which Royce’s title refers. A devotion to a man and his teaching of humility and sacrifice for others has been doctrinally transformed into an institutional justification of absolute power and control. While Royce could understand and appreciate the Christian message as something of vital importance to the world, he had a difficulty, as do many others, reconciling that message with the patently self-aggrandizing and self-serving doctrines of the Church. The centre-point of his concern was the doctrine of grace and its source.
But if Royce were critical of the Church, he was also loyal. His entire philosophy was founded on the idea of commitment to one’s ‘cause’ within a community, in fact a Beloved Community, which exists solely because of the mutual regard of its members and their consequent dedication to finding a satisfactory solution to all disagreements. His criticism of Christianity, however necessary, was not therefore meant to undermine or destroy the institution but to bring it to an awareness of its own fallibility.
This Beloved Community was for Royce something universal, open to all not on the basis of credal affirmation or tribal membership but on the basis of being human. All people had a right to participate in this community. “The atoning deed of the Founder [i.e. Jesus] establishes the Beloved Community, thus making real in the world a form of loyalty capable of overcoming the tragic fact of the moral burden the individual himself can not overcome.” The Church exists to help not to command mankind, to condemn sinners , or to protect God. It exists in order to share the burdens that are the inevitable consequence of being a self-reflective animal thrown into a world he doesn’t understand and among others who understand as little as he does.
The Beloved Community is intensely political. In a sense, it’s purpose is to keep society away from the non-political, that is to say, violence. “Christianity,” he says, “makes possible the redeeming community which avoids individualism and collectivism.” Both these forms of social organisation - socialism and capitalism - are forms of violence, that is coercion, duress, threats, and hostile persuasion. These are manifestations of power and are the antithesis of the Christianity of the Beloved Community.
“The power to give loyalty,” Royce says, “is grace.” This is authentic power. It is also a human capability. We decide to give such power when we commit ourselves to the Beloved Community. True power flows not downward from some spiritual fountain controlled by a hierarchy, it flows upward and outward from those who are loyal to the community. “Loyalty in an individual is his love for a united community.”
Royce recognises the kernel of truth in the Augustinian position, namely that none of us is capable of achieving his or her own salvation, however that is conceived: “We cannot choose to fall in love. Only when once in love can we choose to remain lovers.” But he avoids the predestinational trap of Augustine because he is concerned not about the violent power of the Church but the developmental power of the Beloved Community: “You are first made loyal by the power of someone else who already is loyal.” As with any love, the birth of loyalty is something miraculous. It can’t be predicted and it certainly can’t be coerced. It nevertheless happens as a typical human reaction to those who act in a loyal manner.
“We don’t want our Beloved Community to consist of puppets, or of merely fascinated victims of a melancholy insistent love. We want the free loyalty of those who, whatever fascination first won them to the cause, remain faithful because they choose to remain faithful.” This community is not one that exists for itself. Its unity is meant to foster interpretation of the world, including interpretation of the community itself. A diversity of interpretations is essential for the health of the community. Unity does not mean sameness of interpretation but permanent commitment to expressing, accepting, and continuously interpreting these interpretations.
To say that Royce was ahead of his time would be factually correct but morally inaccurate. Most components of the Christian Church have moved toward Royce’s position over the last century despite their inability to shuck an historical burden of some very bad doctrine. But would that Royce’s criticism had been stated two millennia sooner. Perhaps a great deal of violent misery might have been avoided.
Postscript: The presumption of infinite divine power is a Greek philosophical, not a Hebrew theological one. It is a presumption which causes enormously painful theological headaches and needlessly complicates the ethical lives of ordinary people. See https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Josiah Royce was a philosopher who wrote at a time when it was acceptable, among both philosophers and theologians, for a philosopher to mention the name God. This was a remnant of a thousand year tradition of ‘synthesis’ of all the strands of human inquiry. But this was also a tradition whose influence was to be severely curtailed by the intellectual as well as material trauma of the First World War. The war forms a sort of wall on the far side of which is the wreckage of the cultural importance of theology to the educated mind.
This situation is regrettable, among other reasons because the influence of theology has not declined with its demise from discussion among polite company. Rather theological ideas become hidden and therefore taken for granted and live their life as un-criticised presumption. Royce’s The Problem of Christianity is a subtle, sympathetic but merciless critique of a central complex of Christian thought involving the concepts of salvation, divine grace, and, most importantly, power. It seems to me that an attempt to recover that critique and its implications is worthwhile.
One of the oldest Christian heresies is the Pelagian, named after a fourth century British monk who had the temerity to suggest that the idea of original sin was bunk, that humans had free will and that through free will mankind could contribute to its own salvation. This displeased the likes of Augustine of Hippo who had him condemned at a church council. The heresy was confirmed as such throughout the history of the Church, through the Protestant Reformation, and by the most influential theologian of the 20th century, the Swiss Karl Barth.
The insistence on the inherent corruption of human free will, and on the absolute inability of mankind to contribute in even the smallest part to its own salvation might seem strange. True, the biblical pronouncements of St. Paul stated clearly that Jesus died so that we could be saved. But on the face of it, there appears no reason why the rest of us might not help just a bit through the emulation of Jesus’s sacrifice. A consistent message of the Old Testament - Abraham and Isaac being prime examples - is that one must choose to be chosen, that is, cooperate with a divine invitation.
The parallel Judaic concept of the Zachuth Avot, The Merit of the Fathers (Mothers were also included), for example, held that the Hebrew Patriarchs, through their faith and trust in God, had created a store of divine power which was available for the spiritual help of any Jew in need. But this store could be augmented at any time by the good deeds of anyone. In principle there seems no reason to deny the ‘new Israel’ a similar capability.
Moreover, Augustine’s intransigence led to a rather unfortunate implication, which has had a continuing, decidedly un-Christian effect: Predestination. If only God could decide the salvific fate of human beings; and if not all human beings are to be saved; then it is strictly a matter of the most obvious logic that God saves or condemns based solely on an inscrutable divine instinct. And since God is omniscient, he knows who he has saved or not from the beginning of time. To claim otherwise would be to impugn the unlimited power of God, who is the source of all power. QED.
So the absoluteness of divine power is apparently protected by the Augustinian doctrine. But, not coincidentally, so is another power, that of the Church. The power of God is conceived as an infinite reservoir of grace that has been filled by the sacrifice of Jesus. The sluice gates are controlled by the formal authority of the Church which dispenses this power through its sacraments to the remainder of the world. Only authorised members of the clergy are permitted to exercise this power of distribution, so the Church has a monopoly which it has ever since sought to strengthen and protect.
And this conception of divine power is not relevant only to the Church. In the year 800, Charlemagne is crowned the new Roman emperor by the pope in a ceremony by which he pointedly grants divine power conditionally to the civil authority. In 1066, the Conqueror, having established military control over England, claims every square inch of the country as his personal property to distribute among his followers as a matter of divinely ordained right. In 2016, Britain votes to ‘take back its sovereignty’ from the European Union. Sovereignty is an idea which means responsibility only to God. In every high court in the land there is an ornate plaque which declares ‘Dieu et Mon Droit’. Theological ideas have a very long reach indeed.
This, therefore, is The Problem of Christianity to which Royce’s title refers. A devotion to a man and his teaching of humility and sacrifice for others has been doctrinally transformed into an institutional justification of absolute power and control. While Royce could understand and appreciate the Christian message as something of vital importance to the world, he had a difficulty, as do many others, reconciling that message with the patently self-aggrandizing and self-serving doctrines of the Church. The centre-point of his concern was the doctrine of grace and its source.
But if Royce were critical of the Church, he was also loyal. His entire philosophy was founded on the idea of commitment to one’s ‘cause’ within a community, in fact a Beloved Community, which exists solely because of the mutual regard of its members and their consequent dedication to finding a satisfactory solution to all disagreements. His criticism of Christianity, however necessary, was not therefore meant to undermine or destroy the institution but to bring it to an awareness of its own fallibility.
This Beloved Community was for Royce something universal, open to all not on the basis of credal affirmation or tribal membership but on the basis of being human. All people had a right to participate in this community. “The atoning deed of the Founder [i.e. Jesus] establishes the Beloved Community, thus making real in the world a form of loyalty capable of overcoming the tragic fact of the moral burden the individual himself can not overcome.” The Church exists to help not to command mankind, to condemn sinners , or to protect God. It exists in order to share the burdens that are the inevitable consequence of being a self-reflective animal thrown into a world he doesn’t understand and among others who understand as little as he does.
The Beloved Community is intensely political. In a sense, it’s purpose is to keep society away from the non-political, that is to say, violence. “Christianity,” he says, “makes possible the redeeming community which avoids individualism and collectivism.” Both these forms of social organisation - socialism and capitalism - are forms of violence, that is coercion, duress, threats, and hostile persuasion. These are manifestations of power and are the antithesis of the Christianity of the Beloved Community.
“The power to give loyalty,” Royce says, “is grace.” This is authentic power. It is also a human capability. We decide to give such power when we commit ourselves to the Beloved Community. True power flows not downward from some spiritual fountain controlled by a hierarchy, it flows upward and outward from those who are loyal to the community. “Loyalty in an individual is his love for a united community.”
Royce recognises the kernel of truth in the Augustinian position, namely that none of us is capable of achieving his or her own salvation, however that is conceived: “We cannot choose to fall in love. Only when once in love can we choose to remain lovers.” But he avoids the predestinational trap of Augustine because he is concerned not about the violent power of the Church but the developmental power of the Beloved Community: “You are first made loyal by the power of someone else who already is loyal.” As with any love, the birth of loyalty is something miraculous. It can’t be predicted and it certainly can’t be coerced. It nevertheless happens as a typical human reaction to those who act in a loyal manner.
“We don’t want our Beloved Community to consist of puppets, or of merely fascinated victims of a melancholy insistent love. We want the free loyalty of those who, whatever fascination first won them to the cause, remain faithful because they choose to remain faithful.” This community is not one that exists for itself. Its unity is meant to foster interpretation of the world, including interpretation of the community itself. A diversity of interpretations is essential for the health of the community. Unity does not mean sameness of interpretation but permanent commitment to expressing, accepting, and continuously interpreting these interpretations.
To say that Royce was ahead of his time would be factually correct but morally inaccurate. Most components of the Christian Church have moved toward Royce’s position over the last century despite their inability to shuck an historical burden of some very bad doctrine. But would that Royce’s criticism had been stated two millennia sooner. Perhaps a great deal of violent misery might have been avoided.
Postscript: The presumption of infinite divine power is a Greek philosophical, not a Hebrew theological one. It is a presumption which causes enormously painful theological headaches and needlessly complicates the ethical lives of ordinary people. See https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
March 12, 2025
A Philosophy Of The Beloved Community
The "classic age of American philosophy" is dominated by the figures of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and Josiah Royce. Even though they differ substantially among themselves, the first three of these thinkers are frequently grouped together as pragmatists. Josiah Royce (1855 - 1916), while sharing much in common with the pragmatists, was primarily an idealistic thinker. Throughout a long career, Royce, held that reality was in an important sense spiritual and interconnected. As a result of this commitment to idealism, Royce's thought suffered an eclipse even during his lifetime. While he still is read today, his work is out of fashion with the dominant trend of naturalism in contemporary American philosophy.
"The Problem of Christianity" consists of a series of lectures Royce gave at Manchester College, Oxford in 1913. The "problem" to which Royce refers is the extent to which people in the modern age can find meaning in the basic doctrines of Christianity. There is substantial ambiguity in Royce's concept of Christianity throughout the work. He explains the content of religious life by using historical Christianity as his model. But Royce is no mere apologist. His exposition of the nature and value of religion is not tied either to a particular form of Christianity or to Christianity itself. Part of the appeal of the work lies in its attempt to develop a philosophy of religion not dependent upon a particular creed but to, as Royce puts it, the "invisible church."
The book is in two parts each consisting of eight lectures. In part I, "The Christian Doctrine of Life", Royce attempts to articulate the major ideals underlying the Christian worldview. In part, this section of the book is Royce's attempt to provide a corrective to William James's great work, "The Varieties of Religious Experience." Unlike James, who in the Varieties described religious experience by emphasizing its personal, individualistic character, Royce is a communitarian. He emphasizes the communal character of religion as lived within the context of the "Beloved Community" which, in an ever-expanding process becomes the "universal community". Royce tries to articulate a view of religion that emphasizes the value of the individual, as exemplified, for example, in the person of Jesus, and the importance of the community of believers that developed with Pauline Christianity. In so doing, Royce tries to avoid both extreme individualism as well as totalitarianism. Royce tries to develop and articulate what he terms the three central ideas of Christianity: the idea of the spiritual community within which individual men and women attain salvation, the idea of the hopeless and guilty burden of the individual [sin] which requires divine grace to overcome, and the idea of atonement, under which individuals morally stronger after committing a sin and repenting than was the case even before the bad, traitorous deed.
Among the interesting features of the part I of the Problem of Christianity is a lengthy discussion of Buddhism (pp. 189 - 196) in which Royce recognizes its power and appeal and compares and contrasts its approach to that of Christianity as he understands it. Royce's discussion of Buddhism is the first extended treatment of Buddhist thought of which I am aware in the work of a major American philosopher.
In Part II of the book, "The Real World and the Christian Ideas", Royce attempts to articulate a "metaphysics of the community" that supports the ideals he developed in Part I. Late in his career, Royce became deeply influenced by the thought of Charles Peirce, as this book shows in detail. By expanding upon Peirce's logical studies, Royce argued that the traditional philosophical dichotomy between perception and thought (precept and concept) was not all-encompassing. Instead, Royce argued, there was a third way of human knowing, through interpretation, where one person, A explained a matter B to another person (or to oneself) C. Royce used as well Peirce's theory of signs, in which an object became a sign for one person to explain and interpret to another. This interpretation was a historical process encompassing the past, present and future and in developed in a dialogue over time. Through a process of interpretation, individuals came to know their own minds and those of others and to establish ever-expanding concepts of community. The community of Christian ideals for Royce, expanded and developed with time in a "life of the spirit". For Royce, as an idealist, interpretations were not merely subjective but tended towards an understanding of the real as the object of the community of interpretation.
In the final chapters of his book, Royce attempted to tie together his metaphysics and his understanding of Christianity. He urged an attempt to reach out in breadth to all people and, indeed, to the totality of the universe. itself. Thus, Royce wrote: "I can be geuninely in love with the community only in case I have somehow fallen in love with the universe. The problem of love is human. The solution of the problem, if it comes at all, will be, in its meaning, superhuman, and divine, if there be anything divine." (pp. 269-70) At the end of the book, Royce adopted a maxim: " Judge every social device, every proposed reform, every national and every local enterprise by the one test: Does this help towards the coming of the universal community." (p. 404-405)
Royce's "The Problem of Christianity" is difficult,more suggestive and evocative than rigorously argued. Royce tried to combine pragmatist and idealistic thought in a novel way. Contemporary American pragmatism tends to be highly naturalistic in its orientation. In Pierce and Royce, pragmatism shared substantial commonalities with idealism. Perhaps there is still something to be learned from Royce. "The Problem of Christianity" will be of interest to serious students of philosophy.
Robin Friedman
The "classic age of American philosophy" is dominated by the figures of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and Josiah Royce. Even though they differ substantially among themselves, the first three of these thinkers are frequently grouped together as pragmatists. Josiah Royce (1855 - 1916), while sharing much in common with the pragmatists, was primarily an idealistic thinker. Throughout a long career, Royce, held that reality was in an important sense spiritual and interconnected. As a result of this commitment to idealism, Royce's thought suffered an eclipse even during his lifetime. While he still is read today, his work is out of fashion with the dominant trend of naturalism in contemporary American philosophy.
"The Problem of Christianity" consists of a series of lectures Royce gave at Manchester College, Oxford in 1913. The "problem" to which Royce refers is the extent to which people in the modern age can find meaning in the basic doctrines of Christianity. There is substantial ambiguity in Royce's concept of Christianity throughout the work. He explains the content of religious life by using historical Christianity as his model. But Royce is no mere apologist. His exposition of the nature and value of religion is not tied either to a particular form of Christianity or to Christianity itself. Part of the appeal of the work lies in its attempt to develop a philosophy of religion not dependent upon a particular creed but to, as Royce puts it, the "invisible church."
The book is in two parts each consisting of eight lectures. In part I, "The Christian Doctrine of Life", Royce attempts to articulate the major ideals underlying the Christian worldview. In part, this section of the book is Royce's attempt to provide a corrective to William James's great work, "The Varieties of Religious Experience." Unlike James, who in the Varieties described religious experience by emphasizing its personal, individualistic character, Royce is a communitarian. He emphasizes the communal character of religion as lived within the context of the "Beloved Community" which, in an ever-expanding process becomes the "universal community". Royce tries to articulate a view of religion that emphasizes the value of the individual, as exemplified, for example, in the person of Jesus, and the importance of the community of believers that developed with Pauline Christianity. In so doing, Royce tries to avoid both extreme individualism as well as totalitarianism. Royce tries to develop and articulate what he terms the three central ideas of Christianity: the idea of the spiritual community within which individual men and women attain salvation, the idea of the hopeless and guilty burden of the individual [sin] which requires divine grace to overcome, and the idea of atonement, under which individuals morally stronger after committing a sin and repenting than was the case even before the bad, traitorous deed.
Among the interesting features of the part I of the Problem of Christianity is a lengthy discussion of Buddhism (pp. 189 - 196) in which Royce recognizes its power and appeal and compares and contrasts its approach to that of Christianity as he understands it. Royce's discussion of Buddhism is the first extended treatment of Buddhist thought of which I am aware in the work of a major American philosopher.
In Part II of the book, "The Real World and the Christian Ideas", Royce attempts to articulate a "metaphysics of the community" that supports the ideals he developed in Part I. Late in his career, Royce became deeply influenced by the thought of Charles Peirce, as this book shows in detail. By expanding upon Peirce's logical studies, Royce argued that the traditional philosophical dichotomy between perception and thought (precept and concept) was not all-encompassing. Instead, Royce argued, there was a third way of human knowing, through interpretation, where one person, A explained a matter B to another person (or to oneself) C. Royce used as well Peirce's theory of signs, in which an object became a sign for one person to explain and interpret to another. This interpretation was a historical process encompassing the past, present and future and in developed in a dialogue over time. Through a process of interpretation, individuals came to know their own minds and those of others and to establish ever-expanding concepts of community. The community of Christian ideals for Royce, expanded and developed with time in a "life of the spirit". For Royce, as an idealist, interpretations were not merely subjective but tended towards an understanding of the real as the object of the community of interpretation.
In the final chapters of his book, Royce attempted to tie together his metaphysics and his understanding of Christianity. He urged an attempt to reach out in breadth to all people and, indeed, to the totality of the universe. itself. Thus, Royce wrote: "I can be geuninely in love with the community only in case I have somehow fallen in love with the universe. The problem of love is human. The solution of the problem, if it comes at all, will be, in its meaning, superhuman, and divine, if there be anything divine." (pp. 269-70) At the end of the book, Royce adopted a maxim: " Judge every social device, every proposed reform, every national and every local enterprise by the one test: Does this help towards the coming of the universal community." (p. 404-405)
Royce's "The Problem of Christianity" is difficult,more suggestive and evocative than rigorously argued. Royce tried to combine pragmatist and idealistic thought in a novel way. Contemporary American pragmatism tends to be highly naturalistic in its orientation. In Pierce and Royce, pragmatism shared substantial commonalities with idealism. Perhaps there is still something to be learned from Royce. "The Problem of Christianity" will be of interest to serious students of philosophy.
Robin Friedman
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews