Talk:The Life of Reason

It seems that my description of the edit I just made was a little too long for the History box, so I'll repeat my note here:

"I expanded the earlier statement regarding the book's eloquent style, added in the subtitle, contrasted its emphasis with Santayana's later multi-volume work, and discussed the abridgment."

As someone to whom it was suggested by the professor of a class on American philosophy to read the first volume, Reason in Common Sense, and who then went on to read the four other volumes on his own, this book is one for which I have great affection. I'm glad to see that someone else has taken the initiative to create an article page for it.Wetzel95 06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

National designation
It makes little sense, taking scholarly commentaries, histories of philosophy, and encyclopedia articles as the standard, to label Santayana a Spanish philosopher. But even disregarding convention, I think it makes little sense to call Santayana a Spanish philosopher. Yes, he was born in Spain and held a Spanish passport until he died, but these do not determine one's philosophical orientation. He was the student and colleague of Royce and James at Harvard, and though he strongly criticized them and Dewey, the expression of his philosophy would not have been what it was without at the very least James and Peirce. The influence of his Spanish heritage is undeniable, but so is the influence of Greek philosophy and Asian philosophy. Mc2000 03:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New Additions
Hey all, I just added a bunch to this article, most of it paraphrased from Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy", which has by far the best exegesis of Santayana's philosophy I've yet found (though it was written before "Realms of Being"). I hope to add more later, and from more varied sources, but hopefully this will suffice for now! I'd also like to transport much of this over to the main article on Santayana, and would appreciate some help lengthening both articles! Thanks guys! --MickCallaghan (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the text:

He also rejects immortality in the common sense of the word, saying in Skepticism and Animal Faith: "I believe there is nothing immortal...No doubt the spirit and energy of the world is what is acting in us, as the sea is what rises in every little wave; but it passes through us; and, cry out as we may, it will move on. Our privilege is to have perceived it as it moved."

I cannot find this passage as such anywhere in Scepticism and Animal Faith [sic]. On page 271 of the oft-reprinted Dover edition, he does indeed state his position on immortality with the words, "Whatsoever, having once arisen, never perishes, would be immortal. I believe there is nothing immortal." The chapter in which this is found concludes two paragraphs later, and the remainder of the 'quote' given above is nowhere to be found.

On the contrary, the words "No doubt the spirit and energy of the world is what is acting in us, as the sea is what rises in every little wave; but it passes through us; and, cry out as we may, it will move on. Our privilege is to have perceived it as it moved", are to be found (with one minor change in pointing: through us;] through us,), in Winds of Doctrine, chapter six, "The Genteel Tradition in American Philosophy" (p.199 in the Peter Smith edition (1971), which is a facsimile of the 1913 text, I believe).

If someone can find the full quote in SAF, I will stand corrected. But I think this is an example of copy-catting someone else's misquote! :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by S ikier (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct; it must be from "Winds of Doctrine." Durant appears to have quoted right, but cited improperly; either that, or I just misread. A fairly minor issue, though, and regardless of where it came from an amazing quote! :) --M. Callaghan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.31.124 (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)