Gary F and list, I fail to see why you picked out that portion of the quote. So, if the logician looks to the ethicist for the aims of action... the ethicist does what?
There is a subtle but *huge* difference between ascertaining what ends are possible, which is the business of ethics, and esthetics, which is to define the absolute, ultimate aim; that which would be pursued under all possible circumstances. I needn't tell you of the many authors who have written on this difference. Best, Jerry R On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:51 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > > > [[ Selecting the means to achieve a taken-for-granted end is the common > perception of what engineering is all about--*techne *and *poiesis*. > However, I have argued elsewhere that it is more properly viewed as the > exercise of context-sensitive judgment--*phronesis *and *praxis*. ]] > > > > OK. But I take it that you would agree that even your redefined > “engineering” consists essentially of Practice as opposed to Theory. I > don’t see what difference it would make, pragmatically, for logic to “take > practice as primary instead” of theory. > > > > Jerry R, > > > > Yes, it’s true that esthetics comes before ethics in Peirce’s > classification of the normative sciences. But as your Peirce quote says, the > business of the esthetician “is to say what is the state of things which is > most admirable in itself regardless of any ulterior reason.” When it comes > to the ends of action, though, or “what our ultimate aim is … the logician > has to accept the teaching of ethics in this regard.” > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* 24-May-16 22:29 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: 6 vectors and 3 inference patterns > > > > Gary F., List: > > > > gf: OK, I guess we have a case of polyversity here. To me, “experiencing > the irritation” of doubt IS a “particular *feeling* of dissatisfaction.” > My point was that if you classify even something like playfulness as “a > form of dissatisfaction,” “its being so consists merely in our so regarding > it” (Peirce, MS 293). > > > > Why do we play? In some sense, we are dissatisfied with whatever else we > could (or even should) be doing at that moment. Satisfaction is not > binary, of course; it is a matter of degree. So maybe I should say that > what typically motivates human actions is the expectation of an increase in > satisfaction, relative to the alternatives. > > > > Gf: No. Principles of nature, i.e. legisigns, are the ends which govern > means. Critical consideration of ends is what ethics is all about, not > knowledge of means to any taken-for-granted end (whether those means are > technological or not). That’s what I meant by “ethically privileged.” > > > > I guess I see principles of nature as *constraining *means, rather than > governing them; the ends that do the latter are (usually) conscious human > purposes. Selecting the means to achieve a taken-for-granted end is the > common perception of what engineering is all about--*techne *and *poiesis*. > However, I have argued elsewhere that it is more properly viewed as the > exercise of context-sensitive judgment--*phronesis *and *praxis*. > > > > GF: Anyway, as I tried to say awhile back, when we look at the semiotic > or meaning cycle as a whole, theory and practice take turns, and there’s no > way of determining which comes first in a cycle. But then, as Peirce says, > “of these two movements, logic very properly prefers to take that of Theory > as the primary one (EP2:304-5). > > > > Fair enough, but I remain interested in exploring how it would work (if at > all) and what it would mean (if anything) to take practice as primary > instead; or at least treat ingenuity as more basic than inquiry. > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
