"This is going to be *very* simple..." Jon, you're right. There will be many disagreements along the way.
But hopefully, after pouring over the many works left us by Peirce, one will at least know the method towards recognizing a *good* abductive argument from a bad one. Have you thought to look for that information in Peirce? Where is it? What grounds your opinion? Best, Jerry R On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > JR: So, what’s your leading principle? > > As I understand it, a leading principle (according to Peirce) is not so > much about where you start, as how you get from premisses to conclusion. > > JR: Do you start with the object/thing or the concept? > > Is what the Greeks called a "thing" really equivalent to what Peirce > called an "object"? Or are you using "object" here in a different sense > from Peirce's typical employment of it, for that which determines a > sign? An object in this sense is not limited to being a thing; for > example, it can also be a concept. > > JR: Peirce tells us to start with the object ... > > Again, the object of a sign is not necessarily a fact--surprising or > otherwise. > > JR: Consider above in light of truth as the opinion fated to be *agreed > upon* by *all who investigate* ... > > More properly (according to Peirce), truth is the opinion fated to be > agreed upon by an *infinite community* at the end of an *indefinite > inquiry*. It is a regulative hope, not an inevitable outcome. There has > been, and will continue to be, plenty of *disagreement* along the > way--even among competent and diligent investigators of good will. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here’s a clash of leading principles: >> >> >> >> Seth: “I think Strauss would say that there’s an enormous disparity >> between the way in which the questions now come to us, and the way in which >> they should be truly formulated. The way in which they come to us is so >> deeply infected by the tradition, and it’s so all-pervasive, that you don’t >> even know where the categories we use are coming from... >> >> It goes back to a point in the preface to Hegel’s *Phenomenology*, about >> the distinction between the Greeks and the moderns- they begin with things >> and we begin with the concepts…” >> >> >> >> *In his essay “Political Philosophy and History”…Strauss quotes Hegel on >> the difference between modern and premodern philosophy. “The manner of >> study in ancient times is distinct from that of modern times, in that the >> former consisted in the veritable training and perfecting of the natural >> consciousness. Trying its powers at each part of its life severally, >> and philosophizing about everything it came across, the natural >> consciousness transformed itself into a universality of abstract >> understanding, which was active in every matter and in every respect. In >> modern times, however, the individual finds the abstract form ready made”. >> >> ~Encounters and Reflections, Seth Benardete >> >> >> >> So, what’s your leading principle? >> >> Do you start with the object/thing or the concept? >> >> Perhaps it’s unavoidable that we must start with concepts, then go to the >> object. >> >> >> >> Peirce tells us to start with the object because: >> >> *The surprising fact, C, is observed.* >> >> *But if A were true…* >> >> >> >> Unless, of course, you read above with A as being the object, not C. >> >> But what is the ground for your opinion? Give an example. >> >> >> Consider above in light of truth as the opinion fated to be *agreed upon* >> by *all who investigate* and*, * >> >> >> *"*Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself >> to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that >> this satisfaction is limited to one's own ratiocination, and does not >> extend to that of other men." and, >> >> >> "First and Second, Agent and Patient, Yes and No, are categories which >> enable us roughly to describe the facts of experience, and they satisfy the >> mind for a very long time. But at last they are found inadequate, and the >> Third is the conception which is then called for. The Third is that which >> bridges over the chasm between the absolute first and last, and brings them >> into relationship." >> >> >> So, what grounds your belief for how we ought to start (whether with >> object/thing or concept/rule) when there is a matter of difference of >> opinion? >> >> What's your leading principle? >> >> >> Best, >> Jerry Rhee >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
