Joe and list,
It is difficult to tell exactly what those two psychological laws are from the text. (preceding the quote below) It is also difficult to frame them universally. Either we talk of all men at all times or some men at all times or all men at some time or another. I think we could talk of all men at some time or another  "systematically keeping out of view all that might cause a change in his opinions."  That is what needs explaining. The explanation is teleological. What causes people to avoid changing their opinions? Why do people avoid changing their opinions? Peirce says,
 
1. an instinctive dislike of an undecided state of mind.... makes men cling spasmodically to the views they already take.
2. a steady and immovable faith yields great peace of mind. (sec. 5 FOB)
 
Pyrryo, of course, claimed that 'suspension' yields peace of mind. But this was only after the method of science or experience was brought to bear. Furthermore, an undecided state of mind motivates inquiry as much as it closes it down. Effectively, this reflects the problem of framing a law universally. How about "The truth is too painful." If the man following the "method of ostriches" knew this about himself, however,it is difficult to see how it could yield peace of mind. Can s/he coherently say "I am impervious to the truth and I am happy." What can be said here? In any case, I am not sure what the two psychological laws are. #1 looks like a candidate.
 
Jim W 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] What "fundamenal psychological laws" is Peirce referring to?

In "The Fixation of Belief" Peirce says that

"a man may go through life, systematically keeping out of view all that might cause a change n his opinions, and if he only succeeds -- basing his method, as he does, on two fundamental psychologicl laws -- I do not see what can be said against his doing so".   

This is in Part V, where he is explaining the method of tenacity, where he then goes on to say that "the social impulse" will nevertheless somehow cause him, at times, to face up to some contradiction which impels recourse to adopting the second method, which is the method of authority. 

His explanation of this is very unsatisfactory, far too sketchy to be very informative, and I wonder if anyone has run across any place where he says anything that might flesh that out or, regardless of that, whether anyone has any plausible explanation themselves of exactly what accounts for the transition from the first to the second method.   One might wonder, too,whether Peirce might not have the order wrong:  might it not be argued that method #1 should be authority and method #2 tenacity?  I wonder if anyone has ever tried to justify his ordering of the methods in the way he does? I don't recall anyone ever trying to do that, but then I don't trust my memory on this since it has not always been a topic in which I had much interest until fairly recently.  That he has somehow got hold of something right in distinguishing the methods can be argued, I believe, but can the ordering really be argued for as plausible? 

Joe Ransdell

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

Reply via email to