Dear list:
Here are some quotes by Leo Strauss next to one by Peirce: “The best republic is the ideally perfect, the second the best on earth, the third the best *ex hypotheseos,* under the circumstances. Freedom is the *hypothesis* or condition of democracy.” ~Some Consequences of Four Incapacities ________ “By understanding both sophistry (in its highest as well as in its lower meanings) and statesmanship, one will understand what philosophy is. Philosophy strives for knowledge of the whole.” ~ *What is political philosophy?* “The aim of the good ruler can be achieved by means of laws- this was done, according to Xenophon, in the most remarkable manner in Lycurgus’ city- or by rule without laws, i.e., by tyranny: the beneficent tyrant as described by Simonides makes his city happy… It is certainly most significant that, as regards the happiness achieved by means of laws, Xenophon can adduce an actual example (Sparta), whereas as regards the happiness achieved by tyranny, he offers no other evidence than the promise of a poet. In other words, it is of very great importance that, according to Xenophon, the aim of the good ruler is much more likely to be achieved by means of laws than by means of absolute rule.” ~ *On Tyranny* Hth, Jerry R On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 2:12 PM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: > Gary, Clark, List, > > You may recall that I concluded my message which began this thread with > this question: can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which > might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? > > when i search the CP for "democra" there are only three hits. Just because > of curiosity i also searched for "Jefferson" and "Tocqueville"but there > were no results. Hits in CP I and CP VI are: > > CP 1.654. Common sense, which is the resultant of the traditional > experience of mankind, witnesses unequivocally that the heart is more than > the head, and is in fact everything in our highest concerns, thus agreeing > with my unproved logical theorem; and those persons who think that > sentiment has no part in common sense forget that the dicta of common sense > are objective facts, not the way some dyspeptic may feel, but what the > healthy, natural, normal *democracy* thinks. And yet when you open the > next new book on the philosophy of religion that comes out, the chances are > that it will be written by an intellectualist who in his preface offers you > his metaphysics as a guide for the soul, talking as if philosophy were one > of our deepest concerns. How can the writer so deceive himself? > ---- > CP 6.449. Many a scientific man and student of philosophy recognizes that > it is the Christian church which has made him a man among men. To it he > owes consolations, enjoyments, escapes from great perils, and whatever > rectitude of heart and purpose may be his. To the monks of the medieval > church he owes the preservation of ancient literature; and without the > revival of learning he can hardly see how the revival of science would have > been possible. To them he owes the framework of his intellectual system, > and if he speaks English, a most important part of his daily speech. The > law of love which, however little it be obeyed, he holds to be the soul of > civilization, came to Europe through Christianity. Besides, religion is a > great, perhaps the greatest, factor of that social life which extends > beyond one’s own circle of personal friends. That life is everything for > elevated, and humane, and *democratic* civilization; and if one renounces > the Church, in what other way can one as satisfactorily exercise the > faculty of fraternizing with all one‘s neighbours? > > In CP VIII: > > Peirce: CP 8 Bibliography General 1875 [G-1875-1]1875 > 3. “A Plan and an Illustration” (on proportional representation), The > *Democratic* Party; A Political Study, by a Political Zero (Melusina Fay > Peirce), John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, 1875, pp. 36-37. Both the whole > work and Peirce’s contribution are anonymous, but these are identified in > [Fisch-Haskell]. > > The publication by Melusina can be found here: http://www.unav.es/gep/ > TheDemocraticPartyMichigan.pdf > > Using the keyword "republic" i find: > > CP 2.654 To be logical men should not be selfish; and, in point of fact, > they are not so selfish as they are thought. The willful prosecution of > one’s desires is a different thing from selfishness. The miser is not > selfish; his money does him no good, and he cares for what shall become of > it after his death. We are constantly speaking of *our* possessions on > the Pacific, and of *our* destiny as a *republic*, where no personal > interests are involved, in a way which shows that we have wider ones. We > discuss with anxiety the possible exhaustion of coal in some hundreds of > years, or the cooling-off of the sun in some millions, and show in the most > popular of all religious tenets that we can conceive the possibility of a > man‘s descending into hell for the salvation of his fellows. > > CP 2.654 Now, it is not necessary for logicality that a man should > himself be capable of the heroism of self-sacrifice. It is sufficient that > he should recognize the possibility of it, should perceive that only that > man’s inferences who has it are really logical, and should consequently > regard his own as being only so far valid as they would be accepted by the > hero. So far as he thus refers his inferences to that standard, he becomes > identified with such a mind. > ---- > > CP 5.355. That being the case, it becomes interesting to inquire how it is > with men as a matter of fact. There is a psychological theory that man > cannot act without a view to his own pleasure. This theory is based on a > falsely assumed subjectivism. Upon our principles of the objectivity of > knowledge, it could not be based; and if they are correct, it is reduced to > an absurdity. It seems to me that the usual opinion of the selfishness of > man is based in large measure upon this false theory. I do not think that > the facts bear out the usual opinion. The immense self-sacrifices which the > most wilful men often make, show that wilfulness is a very different thing > from selfishness. The care that men have for what is to happen after they > are dead, cannot be selfish. And finally and chiefly, the constant use of > the word ”*we*“ -- as when we speak of our possessions on the Pacific -- > our destiny as a *republic* -- in cases in which no personal interests at > all are involved, show conclusively that men do not make their personal > interests their only ones, and therefore may, at least, subordinate them to > the interests of the community. > > In CP 8.41 and CP 4.231 P just refers to Platos Republic. And CP 7.601 is > from my point of view also of lesser interest: > > He will not even name him (perhaps to spare the family), but refers to him > by various satirical nick-names, especially as ”*Thrasymachus,*“†4 -- a > foolish character introduced into the *Republic* and another dialogue of > Plato for the purpose of showing how vastly such an ignorant pretender to > philosophy is inferior to Socrates (that is, to Plato himself) in every > quality of mind and heart, and especially in good manners. > > The search terms "vote" and "voting" don't produce any hits related to a > discussion of democracy. > > Since Peirce mentions democracy within the context of his religious ideas > i also included a search for "political economy", because his views on > political economy are also influenced by religion: > > CP 1.75 The old-fashioned *political economist* adored, as alone capable > of redeeming the human race, the glorious principle of individual greed, > although, as this principle requires for its action hypocrisy and fraud, he > generally threw in some dash of inconsistent concessions to virtue, as a > sop to the vulgar Cerberus. But it is easy to see that the only kind of > science this principle would favor would be such as is immediately > remunerative with a great preference for such as can be kept secret, like > the modern sciences of dyeing and perfumery. > ---- > > 6.290. The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and we > all begin to review its doings and to think what character it is destined > to bear as compared with other centuries in the minds of future historians. > It will be called, I guess, the Economical Century; for political economy > has more direct relations with all the branches of its activity than has > any other science. Well, *political economy* has its formula of > redemption, too. It is this: Intelligence in the service of greed ensures > the justest prices, the fairest contracts, the most enlightened conduct of > all the dealings between men, and leads to the summum bonum, food in plenty > and perfect comfort. Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of > intelligence. I do not mean to say that this is one of the legitimate > conclusions of political economy, the scientific character of which I fully > acknowledge. But the study of doctrines, themselves true, will often > temporarily encourage generalizations extremely false, as the study of > physics has encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that the > great attention paid to economical questions during our century has induced > an exaggeration of the beneficial effects of greed and of the unfortunate > results of sentiment, until there has resulted a philosophy which comes > unwittingly to this, that greed is the great agent in the elevation of the > human race and in the evolution of the universe. > > CP 6.291 I open a handbook of *political economy* †1 -- the most typical > and middling one I have at hand -- and there find some remarks of which I > will here make a brief analysis. I omit qualifications, sops thrown to > Cerberus, phrases to placate Christian prejudice, trappings which serve to > hide from author and reader alike the ugly nakedness of the greed-god. But > I have surveyed my position. The author enumerates “three motives to human > action:†2 > > CP 6.291The love of self; > > CP 6.291The love of a limited class having common interests and feelings > with one‘s self; > > CP 6.291The love of mankind at large.” > ---- > > 6.294. Here, then, is the issue. The gospel of Christ says that progress > comes from every individual merging his individuality in sympathy with his > neighbors. On the other side, the conviction of the nineteenth century is > that progress takes place by virtue of every individual’s striving for > himself with all his might and trampling his neighbor under foot whenever > he gets a chance to do so. This may accurately be called the Gospel of > *Greed*. > ---- > > 7.96. In all the explanatory sciences theories far more simple than the > real facts are of the utmost service in enabling us to analyse the > phenomena, and it may truly be said that physics could not possibly deal > even with its relatively simple facts without such analytic procedure. > Thus, the kinetical theory of gases, when first propounded, was obliged to > assume that all the molecules were elastic spheres, which nobody could > believe to be true. If this is necessary even in physics, it is far more > indispensable in every other science, and most of all in the moral > sciences, such as *political economy*. Here the sane method is to begin > by considering persons placed in situations of extreme simplicity, in the > utmost contrast to those of all human society, and animated by motives and > by reasoning powers equally unlike those of real men. Nevertheless, in this > way alone can a base be obtained from which to proceed to the consideration > of the effects of different complications. Owing to the necessity of making > theories far more simple than the real facts, we are obliged to be cautious > in accepting any extreme consequences of them, and to be also upon our > guard against apparent refutations of them based upon such extreme > consequences. > > Other hits for political economy can be found in: > > CP 2.4, CP 3.405, CP 4.210, CP 4.114, 5.377, CP 6.517, CP 6.612, CP 7.64, > CP 7.66, CP 8.6, CP 8 Bibliography General c.1893 [G-c.1893-5] > > For "greed" in: > > CP 6.292, CP 6.293, CP 6.294, CP 6.297, CP 6.311, CP 7.265, CP 8 > Bibliography General c.1893 [G-c.1893-5] > > The context for Peirce thinking about democracy and political economy are > obviously his religious ideas. Central concepts in this context are love > and greed/ altruism and egoism. This brings immediatly Aristoteles > classification of forms of government to my mind (Pol. III, 6 f.). > > government of... altruistic > good > egoistic > bad > one > monarchy > tyranny > few aristocracy > oligarchy > many politeía > democracy > > Maybe this could be a direction to think more about Peirce and democracy... > > Best, > Stefan > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
