John Collier, John Sowa, Kirsti Maatanen, Edwina Taborsky, list:
But that is my point. Isn't a pragmatic maxim to be taken strictly since
it is carefully crafted, with logographic necessity, then it shouldn't be
handled loosely. To say that such things are in the pragmatic maxim (the
pragmatic maxim and not a pragmatic maxim) also implies that it is in ONE
pragmatic maxim, the best one. So, which one? I think this is the matter
that does not get criticized enough.
John Sowa, Edwina:
"*logos* means something rather like calculation than religion..." ~Strauss
“The little matter of distinguishing one, two, and three --in a word, number
and calculation: --do not all arts and sciences necessarily partake of
Sophist, statesman, philosopher! O my dear Theodorus, do my ears truly
witness that this is the estimate formed of them by the great calculator
“By understanding both sophistry (in its highest as well as in its lower
meanings) and statesmanship, one will understand what philosophy
“When a reputable witness makes, or witnesses make, an assertion which
experience renders highly improbable, or when there are other independent
arguments in its favor, each independent argument *pro* or *con* produces a
certain impression upon the mind of the wise man, dependent for its
quantity upon the frequency with which arguments of those kinds lead to the
truth, and the algebraical sum of these impressions is the resultant
impression that measures the wise man’s state of opinion on the whole.”
The way begets one;
One begets two;
Two begets three;
Three begets the myriad creatures.
I just wished to point out that it indeed is very important to study in
detail the exact wording CSP worked with for decades. Especially those
wordings he stick up with in his latest years.
Peirce is greatly enhanced through a direct examination of nature.
“That is why I prefer the study of nature,” said Goethe, “which does not
allow such sickness to arise. For there we have to do with infinite and
eternal truth that immediately rejects anyone who does not proceed neatly
and honestly in observing and handling his subject. I am also certain that
many a person who is dialectically sick could find a beneficial cure in the
study of nature."
And Plato because “It (pragmaticism) appears to have been virtually the
philosophy of Socrates.”
And Aristotle because, “The principles therefore are, in a way, not more in
number than the contraries, but as it were two, nor yet precisely two,
since there is a difference of essential nature, but three…”
So, if Aristotle, Plato and Nature to understand Peirce, then how many
years for each and how would you resolve any differences, should any
conflicts arise? Which should take precedence?
I would recommend starting with Nature, then all three; more or less…
If true, then there should be no conflict and the problem would lie with
"Now the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the
rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his
own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment
is merely this — that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he
says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my
hearers is a secondary matter with me." ~Plato on the attitude in dialectic
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
> Jerry, there are various differently stated versions of the pragmatic
> maxim, and it is also implicit in other work by Peirce.
> One way of putting the maxim is that any difference in meaning implies a
> difference in the possibilities of (external) experience on which they are
> grounded. You can experience this as a feeling (what might be true) as an
> inferred difference, or as an explanation of the difference. Of course,
> separating the three except in the abstract, is impossible. That is what I
> meant when I said I thought Edwina was right about inseperability. She may
> have meant more or less that I didn’t notice.
> This sort of thinking is found throughout Peirce’s writing. I don’t think
> there are any grounds for controversy about that. The interesting thing to
> me, in this case, is that it can be applied reflectively.
> John Collier
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
> *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM
> *To:* John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>
> *Cc:* Peirce-L <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
> John Collier, list:
> You said: I agree with Edwina that all three elements are involved in
> the pragmatic maxim.
> Do you mind stating where, in the pragmatic maxim, it says this?
> I'm not questioning whether it is or not. I'm just not sure to what you
> are referring.
> Thank you,
> Jerry R
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On 10/15/2016 9:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Since I am rejecting a metaphysical origin [God] as the origin
> of the universe, I stick with the Big Bang for now.
> I agree with Heraclitus and my namesake, John the Evangelist:
> Heraclitus wrote about the logos — translated variously as word,
> speech, or reason: "all things (panta) come into being according to
> this logos." The Greek concept of logos, which can also be translated
> account, reckoning, or even computation is broad enough to encompass
> all the abstractions of mathematics, metaphysics, and the sciences.
> A few centuries after Heraclitus, John the Evangelist wrote "In the
> beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and God was the
> logos. It was in the beginning with God. All things (panta) came into
> being through it, and without it nothing that has come to be came into
> being" (1,1-3). John and Heraclitus used the same words logos, panta,
> and gignomai (come to be). What they meant by those words, however,
> has been a matter of debate for millennia.
> As a realist, I believe that the logos exists. To relate it to modern
> science and to Peirce, I believe that the logos is the truth that is
> the goal of unrestricted inquiry by unlimited generations of "scientific
> intelligence" by which Peirce meant any intelligence that is capable of
> learning from experience.
> 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