*poring* over... Best, J
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 .
