Jack, List: What exactly do you mean by "'convergence' within Peirce's system" and "the price ... of the dynamic(al) object" that must allegedly be paid in order to affirm it? What exactly do you mean by "positivist knowledge" in this context? The pragmaticistic definition of truth as what an infinite community *would *believe after infinite investigation does not preclude us from already *actually *knowing *some *truths, innately or otherwise. "On many questions the final agreement is already reached" (CP 8.12, 1871), and "upon innumerable questions, we have already reached the final opinion" (CP 8.39, 1885). Nevertheless, the doctrine of fallibilism "says that people cannot attain absolute certainty concerning questions of fact" (CP 1.149, c. 1897).
Of course, it is controversial whether any *ethical *questions are among those that are susceptible of ultimate answers; the nominalist says no, the scholastic realist says yes. Moreover, Jerry R. rightly notes that for Peirce, esthetics is prior to ethics--before we can know how we ought to behave, we must first establish "what is the state of things which is most admirable in itself regardless of any ulterior reason" (CP 1.611, EP 2:253, 1903). You suggest that avoiding deliberate harm fits the bill, but it seems to me that this is not *intrinsically *admirable, especially since there are circumstances when many would argue that harming or even killing another person is morally justified for the sake of a higher good; chemotherapy, self-defense, and capital punishment are examples that immediately come to mind. Peirce gives a different answer to his own question a few paragraphs later. "The one thing whose admirableness is not due to an ulterior Reason is Reason itself comprehended in all its fullness, so far as we can comprehend it. Under this conception, the ideal of conduct will be to execute our little function in the operation of the creation by giving a hand toward rendering the world more reasonable whenever, as the slang is, it is 'up to us' to do so" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255). Elsewhere, he connects this directly with his maxim of pragmatism--"the only ultimate good which the practical facts to which it directs attention can subserve is to further the development of concrete reasonableness ... Synechism is founded on the notion that the coalescence, the becoming continuous, the becoming governed by laws, the becoming instinct with general ideas, are but phases of one and the same process of the growth of reasonableness" (CP 5.3-4, 1902). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 1:56 PM Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jack, Edwina, list, other people, > > > Where do you stand with respect to the bold assertion by Peirce in CP > 5.36? > > He seems to indicate that your problem is an old problem. > > What is it you admire of Ethics? What is its *secret *(ART 57, or do I > mean ART 37)? > > I mean, is esthetics only for imbeciles or the useless- merely a matter we > desire to forget? > > > *But we cannot get any clue to the secret of Ethics * > > *-- a most entrancing field of thought but soon broadcast with pitfalls -* > > *until we have first made up our formula for **what it is that we are > prepared to admire**. * > > *I do not care what doctrine of ethics be embraced, it will always be so. > (CP 5.36).* > > > Best, > Jerry Rhee > > > *“It was this turn in which I thought the poets had preceded him, * > > *for it had always been a puzzle to me **how the principle of telling **lies > like the truth**, * > > *upon which all of Greek poetry rests, could precede the telling of the > truth, * > > *for it seemed obvious to me, as it had to Socrates, * > > *that one cannot lie knowingly unless one knows the truth.” * > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 1:26 PM Jack Cody <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Edwina, List, >> >> ME: "I have but one note to add: The Real, for me, can only be an >> "ethical understanding" for this, how we practice with respect to ourselves >> and among each other, is the only practical constant that remains >> regardless of one's view of the universe or particular >> physical/metaphysical understanding. That's where I locate "truth" —in >> ethical practice whereby ideal is not idealism but necessarily true in the >> most pragmatic sense of the term." >> ----------------------------------- >> I'd like to press the above in the context of "dynamic object(s)". If one >> assumes "convergence" within Peirce's system, it seems evident to me that >> one has to pay the price, small or large, of the dynamic(al) object insofar >> as I understand that (almost as static, if not quite, or literally, static). >> >> Which leads to me to reject for the moment the idea of positivist >> knowledge with respect to things which may or may not be known, ever, and >> rather pragmatically relocate the debate within the most fundamental >> dialectic we have: "ethics". >> >> Though many books have been written on ethics, I do not believe a >> thousand years makes much of a difference (or an infinite period at that) >> with respect to the idea that "Murder is false/entirely wrong" (that harm >> inflicted, generally, is almost always, if not always, false/wrong). With >> that in mind, one must surely conclude that the Dynamic Object of that >> "moral judgement" is already "known" and is scarcely possible that we could >> know "why" any more in an infinite period than we already do? >> >> That is, we can argue catechism until the cows come home but we all >> surely know, innately (I sense arguments?), that these things are just >> "wrong". I see no value in infinite inquiry here —that is, no one is coming >> along with a "...and to murder was wrong because..." revelation which >> overrides basic innate moral instinct (or judgement) as we already have it. >> >> And thus, no matter what, I really do think ethics, as the most truthful >> way in which to treat one's self and lifeforms around one, is always >> "constant" —all ideas regarding the make-up of the universe or the atom >> (much the same?) do nothing to the idea (not really an idea, for surely >> this must emerge from pure firstness which, though technically "possible" >> in Peirce, may, in prohibition terms be said to be a "resource" which when >> required, one can draw on, and thus always actual and possible without >> contradiction) —do nothing to the idea that, practically, we already have a >> constant, which in global terms, we treat as if it scarcely existed >> (ETHICS). >> >> I've long since assumed that literalist versions of Plato's Cave aside, >> the only actual question in such situations, (an actually genuine >> "solution"), is ethics. It can be nothing else. And so, from >> firstness-soundness-thirdness, DO/Inf Inq, all to/through ethics. >> >> There is a better response in what I've said there —even the germs of a >> paper, but I wanted to make a brief contribution and I think a truthful one >> (I would like to hear people's opinions on the idea that truthful ethics is >> always universal, that is, not nominalist, and already, in so many >> respects, decided/determined, if not actualized —which is where one might >> cite "inquiry"? Though I maintain that 99% of all ethical principles one >> needs are basically innate and stem from the idea, never selfish, that none >> ought be able to do "one" harm ("learned" as a child...). We merely extend >> that to other people —though as a global society, despite everyone knowing >> these things, and knowing them insofar as they ever will, we seem rather >> crap at enforcing it consistently (we are antediluvian in this respect). >> >> Best, >> Jack >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
