Dear list:


Wonderful!  Thank you for stating your position clearly.



So now, all we need decide is whether CP 5.189 is or is not a pragmatic
maxim.

But before that, we need to decide whether it is or is not a maxim.

For a pragmatic maxim belongs to the set of maxims.



Here are some standards for “maxim”:



‘*Every man who has seen the world knows that nothing is so useless as a
general maxim’*, wrote Lord Macaulay in 1827.



In Macaulay’s view, outlined here, maxims are essentially for the purpose
of regulating conduct by preventing foolish action, but do not often work.



General maxims’ are for the improvement and education of the masses and
might occasionally prevent folly..



But in pre-theoretical thought, maxims are a way of preserving truth, a way
of ‘thinking memorable thoughts’, the very stuff of knowledge, replete with
communal values.



They are used by, and of, the socially-elevated as much as the common
people; by and of women; in a casual, ordinary ‘*ofost is selost’* (haste
is best) way, as well as for narrative, rhetorical and emphatic purpose. “

*~* Paul Cavill, Maxims in Old English Poetry





“A *form*, consisting in universality; and in this view the formula of the
moral imperative is expressed thus, that the

maxims must be so chosen as if they were to serve as universal laws of
nature.”

~Kant



As to reasons for why pragmatic maxim, I would refer to Jon and John’s
arguments.



But what I would also like to point out are their reasons for why CP 5.189
is *NOT* a maxim, much less a pragmatic one, for there must also be reasons
to suspect A is *not* true.



I would challenge you to defend that position.

That is, the *reasons* for why CP 5.189 as a pragmatic maxim is surprising
and/or suspicious to you.



Thank you for the conversation.



Best,

Jerry Rhee

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:43 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> 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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Jerry Rhee <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>
> 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]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM
> *To:* John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>
> *Cc:* Peirce-L <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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to