Clark,
An excellent & clear statement. I agree with all points you take up.
Kirsti
Clark Goble kirjoitti 10.5.2016 00:33:
On May 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
I read Peirce primarily for his insights into logic, mathematics,
and science, which are considerable enough for several lifetimes,
and I read him the same way I read other thinkers in those areas.
Maybe some people read Peirce as Charles the Revelator, applying
the principles of scriptural interpretation and chasing his tale
around hermeneutic circles in hopes of cornering a sublime truth.
Scientific texts are read a different way. There we have a line
between two kinds of statements, those that serve as conjectures,
heuristics, or suggestions and those that are proved (or proven).
I think there are two things to get straight. History of philosophy
which hopefully tries to figure out how particular thinkers understood
terms. That’s useful because often readers of their texts get things
wrong. The difficulty is that of course people are hardly always
consistent (particularly in notes) and are also fallible. So there are
always debates about what is a mistake, what place private notes ought
play, and what place a few particular sentences ought have in
understanding larger texts. Frequently the authors are
underdetermined. i.e. we can’t be sure what they mean. Sometimes
this leads to radically different readings of the philosopher. (My
favorite example is the middle Heidegger on the question of whether
he’s an idealist or realist on the basis of one small paragraph in
Being and Time)
Now history of philosophy can lead to productive engagements with
philosophers. However I tend to agree it gets pushed too much.
Philosophy has a long history of productive use of misreadings - both
in terms of positively misreading or reacting to a position that is
often a misreading. (Strawmen boogeymen like how Descartes, Plato,
Logical Positivists or others are great examples of the latter)
-----------------------------
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 .
