My impression is that after 1905, Peirce referred to pragmaticism as a variety of pragmatism, but since he regarded most other varieties as too 'literary' and not logically rigorous enough, considered pragmaticism the only variety worth 'proving', maybe the only one capable of 'proof'. In that context, a proof of pragmaticism could be (somewhat loosely) called a 'proof of pragmatism'. In his "Prolegomena" (1906) he did once refer to his "Apology for Pragmaticism" as a "defence of pragmatism" (CP 4.534).
gary f. From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 2-May-14 9:21 PM To: Phyllis Chiasson Cc: peirce-l@list iupui. edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest view + overarching view incl methodeutic) Thanks Phyllis - I think part of CSPs desire was to establish the scholastic elements of his thinking. But he may also have had a genuine desire to have his philosophy distinguished from pragmatism. If that is the case there might be some consideration of whether we should assume and honor that wish. I think it would help establish Peirce as a force to be reckoned with among those who have little awareness beyond his linkage to pragmatism. @stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]> wrote: Good point, Stephen. Listers, Does anyone know whether Peirce referred to the name of this proof differently after he coined the word pragmaticism in his 1905 essay, What Pragmatism Is? Was he consistent in using pragmaticism rather than pragmatism after that time? Phyllis
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
