Jim-
Insofar as Taylor's argument is rooted in value laden experiences of
Nature, I'd be inclined to agree with you - not that he is describing a
Tillichian small r religion (assuming I grasped Tillich's point) but
that Tillich's small r religion explains why Taylor finds this
conclusion so important, even though he cannot prove it to the
satisfaction of traditional philosophy.
This is why I argue that Nature - something that is experienced as
more-than-human - is the appropriate locus for religious values in the
environmental community, not environmentalism, which is a human
construct far far more than nature is. That is, I think we would all
agree that nature (whatever it is) existed before we did.
Environmentalism certainly didn't.
Are we on a similar wavelength?
best wishes,
Gus
On Saturday, February 28, 2004, at 04:02 PM, Jim Tantillo wrote:
> And I think that many other environmentalists in addition to Taylor
> hold this foundational belief in the "ultimate" moral attitude toward
> nature.
|