Spindle of Necessity: FS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13825 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13826 JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13971 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13974 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13975 FS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13977 JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13979 GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13980
Gary, List, With regards to the following line of mine: | It has to do with projecting any Weltanschauung or ism on a thinker | who protested the very idea of interpreting his position in that way. I see that it is possible to parse that sentence in a way that I did not think. So let me rephrase it in a way that makes the antecedent of "that way" explicit. | It has to do with projecting any Weltanschauung or ism | on a thinker who protested the very idea of interpreting | his position as a Weltanschauung or ism. And there I have in mind a general attitude that Peirce expresses on numerous occasions, whether it be about any other ism or his own declared pragmatic-ism, for instance, in his gloss on the theme of pragmatism that I cite as the sixth variation on the following page: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/ Regards, Jon Gary Fuhrman wrote:
Jon, you are claiming that Peirce "protested the very idea of interpreting his position" as a refusal to regard logic as a branch of psychology. Can you produce any evidence to back that up? gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 8-Sep-14 11:05 AM Re: Frederik Stjernfelt At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13977 Frederik, In the 70s I read almost as much Frege and Russell as I did Peirce and I think I grasped Frege's attitude fairly well, along with the mess Russell made of just about everything he touched. It is not the simple anachronism of the term, of course we have to re-describe positions in contemporary language. It has to do with projecting any Weltanschauung or ism on a thinker who protested the very idea of interpreting his position in that way. And yes, that applies even to pragmat(ic)ism. Peirce's work has the power to lift our thinking off the plane of many old and pointless disputes. That is the attraction it always had for me, at any rate. But the worst distortions of Peirce's thought come from trying to assimilate him to the very planes on which he is too, too solid to melt. Regards, Jon
-- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 .
