Gary says:
"The social principle is rooted in logic, and logic is rooted in the
social principle. If that ain't circular, what is?"
(See below for context)
REPLY:
Well, Gary, it looks like some fancy footwork with the term "is rooted in" might have to be resorted to if we are to save Peirce on this one! You've caught him with a flat contradiction there! (Or so it seems! 8-] )
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The social principle is rooted in logic, and logic is rooted in the
social principle. If that ain't circular, what is?"
(See below for context)
REPLY:
Well, Gary, it looks like some fancy footwork with the term "is rooted in" might have to be resorted to if we are to save Peirce on this one! You've caught him with a flat contradiction there! (Or so it seems! 8-] )
Joe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message ----
From: gnusystems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Peirce Discussion Forum <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:55:58 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamenal psychological laws" is Peirce referring to?
From: gnusystems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Peirce Discussion Forum <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 12:55:58 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: What "fundamenal psychological laws" is Peirce referring to?
Joe, thanks for that pointer to Jeff Kasser's paper; it clears up many
of the questions i've had lately about what Peirce meant by
"psychologism" (and "psychology").
However i'm inclined to question Jeff's emphasis (in the middle of the
paper) on the circularity of "psychologistic" approaches to logic as a
crucial component of Peirce's antipsychologism. I think there's an
important sense in which the logic of science -- the logic that Peirce
was mainly interested in -- *has* to be circular, or rather cyclical. I
won't go into that here, but i will point out a circularity in Peirce
which i think would be rather damning if all circles were vicious.
Jeff quotes W2 270-1, CP 5.354, EP1 81 [1869]:
[[[ [L]ogic rigidly requires, before all else, that no determinate fact,
nothing which can happen to a man's self, should be of more consequence
to him than everything else. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to
save the whole world, is illogical in all his inferences, collectively.
So the social principle is intrinsically rooted in logic. ]]]
Now, compare this with a clearly "recycled" version from 1878 (EP1, 149;
CP 2.654):
[[[ It seems to me that we are driven to this, that logicality
inexorably requires that our interests shall not be limited. They must
not stop at our own fate, but must embrace the whole community. This
community, again, must not be limited, but must extend to all races of
beings with whom we can come into immediate or mediate intellectual
relation. It must reach, however vaguely, beyond this geological epoch,
beyond all bounds. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the
whole world, is, as it seems to me, illogical in all his inferences,
collectively. Logic is rooted in the social principle. ]]]
The social principle is rooted in logic, and logic is rooted in the
social principle. If that ain't circular, what is?
gary
}Who guides those whom God has led astray? [Qur'an 30:29 (Cleary)]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of the questions i've had lately about what Peirce meant by
"psychologism" (and "psychology").
However i'm inclined to question Jeff's emphasis (in the middle of the
paper) on the circularity of "psychologistic" approaches to logic as a
crucial component of Peirce's antipsychologism. I think there's an
important sense in which the logic of science -- the logic that Peirce
was mainly interested in -- *has* to be circular, or rather cyclical. I
won't go into that here, but i will point out a circularity in Peirce
which i think would be rather damning if all circles were vicious.
Jeff quotes W2 270-1, CP 5.354, EP1 81 [1869]:
[[[ [L]ogic rigidly requires, before all else, that no determinate fact,
nothing which can happen to a man's self, should be of more consequence
to him than everything else. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to
save the whole world, is illogical in all his inferences, collectively.
So the social principle is intrinsically rooted in logic. ]]]
Now, compare this with a clearly "recycled" version from 1878 (EP1, 149;
CP 2.654):
[[[ It seems to me that we are driven to this, that logicality
inexorably requires that our interests shall not be limited. They must
not stop at our own fate, but must embrace the whole community. This
community, again, must not be limited, but must extend to all races of
beings with whom we can come into immediate or mediate intellectual
relation. It must reach, however vaguely, beyond this geological epoch,
beyond all bounds. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the
whole world, is, as it seems to me, illogical in all his inferences,
collectively. Logic is rooted in the social principle. ]]]
The social principle is rooted in logic, and logic is rooted in the
social principle. If that ain't circular, what is?
gary
}Who guides those whom God has led astray? [Qur'an 30:29 (Cleary)]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
