Thanks for clearing that up for us, Jerry.
Gary f. From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25-May-16 13:18 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] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: 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.
----------------------------- 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 .
