Ben, list: Thank you for that contribution! I wish to extend that conversation:
“How can a creature so place himself at the point of view of his Creator?” “The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature” “For what is “first for us” is not the philosophic understanding of the city but that understanding which is inherent in the city as such…according to which the city sees itself as subject and subservient to the divine in the ordinary understanding of the divine or looks up to it. *Only by beginning at this point* will we be open to the full impact of the all-important question which is coeval with philosophy although the philosophers do not frequently pronounce it- the question **quid sit deus**.” ~City and Man This was one of the sources of his great appeal to students. He began where they began and showed them that they had not reflected on the presuppositions of their science or their politics and that these presuppositions had been reflected on by great men whom we have for all practical purposes forgotten how to read. The study of those thinkers became both a necessity and a delight. This was Leo Strauss' only rhetoric… Moreover, the critique of the principles of social science was accompanied by an effort to look at political things as they first come to sight, to rediscover the phenomena which were transformed or reduced by the new methods. Strauss was dedicated to the restoration of a rich and concrete natural consciousness of the political phenomenon. His truly astounding clarity and freshness in describing the things around us came in large measure from the way he used old books to liberate himself from the categories which bind us. ~Bloom on Strauss http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Strauss/BloomsleoStrauss.pdf *Ronna:* Did he think he was doing what Strauss was doing? *Seth:* That never came up. I do remember him saying, toward the end of his life, "Oh, I now realize you always knew this. But I've just come to recognize how central the question *'Quid sit deus?'*is." One two three… sign object interpretant… object sign interpretant… What is God? what would God be? God… What would God be? what is God? God… Hth, Jerry R On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also see Peirce discussing the difference between logical classification > and natural classification in "Triadomany", CP 1.568-572 > http://www.textlog.de/4336.html > > Best, Ben > > > On 9/29/2016 2:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Mike, List: > > Glad to be of service! In the meantime, you might review Peirce's > extensive discussion of "natural classes" and "natural classification" at > CP 1.203-231. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > >> Fantastic, Jon. That would be most helpful, especially since that is >> "new" information. >> Mike >> >> On 9/29/2016 11:32 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Mike, List: >> >> As it happens, I am currently in the process of reading and transcribing >> R 1343, "Of the Classification of the Sciences, Second Paper, Of the >> Practical Sciences," once again thanks to the SPIN project ( >> http://fromthepage.com/collection/show?collection_id=16). So far, about >> 40 pages into it, it presents instead a classification of instincts; but if >> I remember right, it also includes some discussion about principles of >> classification. I do not have my in-progress transcription with me at the >> office, but if I get a chance this evening, I will review it and post >> anything relevant that I find. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi List, >>> >>> Ben Udell recently quoted from this Peirce memoir: >>> >>> MEMOIR 27: OF METHODEUTIC >>> >>> [....] >>> >>> From Draft B - MS L75.279-280 >>> >>> [....] Two other problems of methodeutic which the old logics usually >>> made almost its only business are, first, the principles of definition, and >>> of rendering ideas clear; and second, the principles of classification. >>> [End quote] >>> >>> I have only found spotty references by Peirce to the "principles of >>> classification" in my own online resources. Would anyone on the list care >>> (Edwina ? :) ) to provide any of their own known citations? >>> >>> Thanks in advance, >>> >>> Mike >>> >> > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
