> On Sep 26, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank you for this helpful breakdown of different approaches to Peirce's > writings. I wonder if my dispute with Edwina earlier in this thread was > rooted in either misunderstanding or genuine disagreement between us about > whether #3 is properly characterized as an "interpretation" of Peirce. I > have been operating under the assumption that this term should be confined to > #1 and #2--i.e., clarifying and applying Peirce's own views, rather than > going beyond them. I agree with your suggestion that #4 does not really > belong on the List.
I think Edwina’s somewhat understandable complaints was more making the commenter’s personal views determinative. That does verge close to ad homen even though I recognize that wasn’t your intent. As I think I said at the time, take Edwina out of the discussion and I think you raised a very important point. I wish more people had chimed in on the content of it. It seems to me that the pre-existing religious beliefs of a person conducting the NA will shape their conclusions. Peirce’s own odd mixture of Unitarianism, Anglicanism, and perhaps Hegelianism undoubtedly shaped his conclusions. How would other people conducting the experiment deal with it? While abduction is not quite the same as intuition there are obvious parallels between Peirce’s use of abduction and the use of intuitions in the analytic tradition. Now I’ve been a long time critic of intuitions in analytic philosophy. I think at a minimum they tend to be biased towards a very narrow niche of views (i.e. upper middle class whites of a narrow range of political views) One interesting innovation in analytic philosophy starting in the late 90’s was the rise of experimental philosophy. Despite the name this was much more actually just attempting to more rigorously look at what people’s intuitions actually were rather than just what famous philosophers said intuitions were. Often there were interesting divergences between what intuitions were presented at and what preliminary investigations showed them to be. Again, abduction isn’t intuition but there is a certain sense where something like experimental philosophy would be helpful in analyzing the NA.
----------------------------- 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 .
