> On Sep 8, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clark wrote: The old joke of 90% of any philosophical argument consists of > coming to agreement over the semantics of terms is all too often true. > > And in a logically narrow sense, this is what Peirce suggests is the purpose > and value of the Pragmatic Maxim.
Yes. It’s interesting that while Peirce intended the maxim to apply in more normal senses of verification akin to what one finds in the hard sciences in many ways when applied to subjective properties it anticipates the later Wittgenstein quite well. Since in practice such more muddled terms are tied to people who judge if the use is correct. That’s how we’d verify their use. I know some have tried to put an opposition between Peirce’s form of the maxim and his realism, but I think understanding the relationship between communities of inquirers, Wittgenstein like judges, and metaphysical properties avoids those criticisms. Metaphysics can’t be measured the way hardness is but it can be seen in the community of inquirers who are affected by the universe’s structures.
----------------------------- 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 .
