> On Oct 21, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > > The positivists divided sciences into formal (i.e., mathematics and deductive > logic) and factual. I never got clear on where they put philosophy, I suspect > they hoped to make it into a formal science.
I think they differed among themselves on this, although I’m not an expert on the Vienna circle. (And especially not the 19th century positivists) It seemed that the spirit of the mid-20th century was to attempt to reduce philosophy to other matters. Either becoming clear on our semantics that would dissolve most problems or to reduce it to a kind of foundationalist epistemology of judgments with the rest being clear formalism. It was in most ways a rather bad dead end for philosophy IMO. Fortunately people drug themselves out of it while (hopefully) taking what was useful from both critiques. I’ll confess that I’ve never quite understood the drive to taxonomy on these matters. (This is one Peircean drive I’ve never been able to quite embrace) If for only the reason that any practical analysis seems such a mix of different taxonomies. I just never quite was clear what the point was. Certainly keeping clear what one is doing (semantics vs. ontology) and so forth is important. But one can become clear on the parts one is doing while acknowledging that the item under analysis is usually a mix. Perhaps I’m wrong in this though. > As to my question, I think I was getting myself into some contortions about > deduction because in some half-conscious way I was still introducing the idea > of conflict. Now, Peirce said that deduction is for prediction. That by > itself is enough to suggest that an emotion of impatience belongs to the > occasion of deduction — an impatience with the vagueness of the future, or > the coyness of the present in telling us it — one doesn't want to wait for > nature to take its course, one wants to find out ahead of time, on the basis > of accumulated data, what is the fate, for example of the Milky Way. (It > turns out to be on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy.) I think you’re right although I’m not sure impatience gets at the feeling quite right. I think dissatisfaction is perhaps more apt since impatience implies a time component that’s not always present.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
