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 .




Reply via email to