Dear list: with apologies...
I meant "from the start no better than a vegetable". Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, list: > > Thank you for that earnest answer. > Still, can there not be a strongest argument? > That is, an argument that is the best given the number of existing > possibilities that are presented explicitly; a choice among them that is > based on our valuation for likeness between terms? > > And if we were not to attempt to speak on it, does that not make us > vegetables? For that would be to deny that it is at least in our best > interest to view clearly on what we place our valuations and the methods at > our disposal. > > So, what is that best pragmatic maxim for us, the community of > investigators who are devoured by a desire to find things out? > > Thank you for your comments, > Jerry R > > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > >> Jerry, List, >> >> I tend to think more in relative terms than absolute terms, >> so I would not expect to find an absolute best formulation >> of any core principle in philosophy, science, or even math. >> But taken relative to specific interpreters and objectives >> we frequently find that symbolic expressions of meaningful >> principles can be improved almost indefinitely. >> >> I had hoped to have more time to elaborate, but I will have >> to beg off at this point and try to get back to it later on. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> On 11/1/2016 2:05 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: >> > Jon, list: >> > >> > How do you assess whether a pragmatic maxim is good or bad? >> > >> > | "For logic is, in the main, criticism of reasoning as good or bad." >> > >> > | "There is in the dictionary a word, *solipsism*, meaning the belief >> >> > | that the believer is the only existing person. Were anybody to adopt >> > | such a belief, it might be difficult to argue him out of it. But when >> > | a person finds himself in the society of others, he is just as sure of >> > | their existence as of his own, though he may entertain a metaphysical >> > | theory that they are all hypostatically the same ego." >> > | ~ Peirce >> > >> > Best, >> > Jerry R >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 9:40 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 >> >>> >> >> -- >> >> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >> 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 .