Thanks, Jon A., I remember reading these on your blog years ago. Very helpful, including your comments.
Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Peircers, > > Here is a set of variations on the Pragmatic Maxim > that I collected a number of years ago, along with > some commentary of my own as I last left it. As I > understand them, they all say essentially the same > thing, merely differing in emphasis, point of view, > or rhetorical style as befit the moment's audience > or occasion. > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/ > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 10/15/2016 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
