I agree with Jon, of course. He is right about the confusion, and the issue I tried to address in my previous post was to find some common unifying factor, not necessarily the best statement of the pragmatic maxim. Nonetheless, I believe there are better and worse versions, and that these are far outweighed by partial versions (not to mention outright misunderstandings).
The non-existence of a single or best pragmatic maxim in Peirce makes Jerry’s request of me impossible to satisfy., as I tried in a rather around about way to explain. John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2016 8:24 PM To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims (was Peirce's Cosmology) List: Per Gary R.'s request, I am shifting this discussion to a new thread topic. I would appreciate it if others would do likewise when extending any of the other ongoing conversations about pragmatic maxims or other subjects besides Peirce's cosmology. There seems to be a confusion here between "the pragmatic maxim," which is a very specific principle of methodeutic with multiple formulations in Peirce's writings, and "the best pragmatic maxim," which is not something that Peirce ever discussed as far as I can tell. In particular, CP 5.189 is not the pragmatic maxim, nor even a pragmatic maxim in the same sense, so it is certainly not the best pragmatic maxim. For one thing, as we established recently in another thread, it is the form of inference for abduction only, and thus falls under logical critic. The pragmatic maxim subsequently serves as a tool for admitting hypotheses that are amenable to deductive explication and inductive evaluation, and rejecting those that are not. In any case, there is no need to guess or speculate which pragmatic maxim Peirce had in mind when he wrote the following ... That is, pragmatism proposes a certain maxim which, if sound, must render needless any further rule as to the admissibility of hypotheses to rank as hypotheses, that is to say, as explanations of phenomena held as hopeful suggestions; and, furthermore, this is all that the maxim of pragmatism really pretends to do, at least so far as it is confined to logic, and is not understood as a proposition in psychology. (CP 5.196; 1903) ... because he told us in the very next sentence. For the maxim of pragmatism is that a conception can have no logical effect or import differing from that of a second conception except so far as, taken in connection with other conceptions and intentions, it might conceivably modify our practical conduct differently from that second conception. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com<mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com>> wrote: John Collier, John Sowa, Kirsti Maatanen, Edwina Taborsky, list: John Collier: 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 them? Sophist, statesman, philosopher! O my dear Theodorus, do my ears truly witness that this is the estimate formed of them by the great calculator and geometrician?” ~Plato “By understanding both sophistry (in its highest as well as in its lower meanings) and statesmanship, one will understand what philosophy is.”~Strauss “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.” ~Peirce The way begets one; One begets two; Two begets three; Three begets the myriad creatures. ~Lau 42 ____________ Kirsti, You said: 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 me. "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 Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto: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 http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com<mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com>] Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM To: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net<mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>> 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
----------------------------- 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 .
