Jerry, i am not sureb whether your quote from "Four Consequences" is useful or not. In my opinion it is just an example and does not necessarily express Peirce opinion about democracy. Do you think different about this quote?
Best, Stefan The whole context is: ----------- 1. Several persons versed in logic have objected that I have here quite misapplied the term hypothesis, and that what I so designate is an argument from analogy. It is a sufficient reply to say that the example of the cipher has been given as an apt illustration of hypothesis by Descartes (Rule 10, Oeuvres choisies: Paris, 1865, page 334), by Leibniz (Nouveaux Essais, lib. 4, ch. 12, §13, Ed. Erdmann, p. 383 b), and (as I learn from D. Stewart; Works, vol. 3, pp. 305 et seqq.) by Gravesande, Boscovich, Hartley, and G.L. Le Sage. The term Hypothesis has been used in the following senses: 1. For the theme or proposition forming the subject of discourse. 2. For an assumption. Aristotle divides theses or propositions adopted without any reason into definitions and hypotheses. The latter are propositions stating the existence of something. Thus the geometer says, "Let there be a triangle." 3. For a condition in a general sense. We are said to seek other things than happiness ex hypotheseos, conditionally. 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. 4. For the antecedent of a hypothetical proposition. 5. For an oratorical question which assumes facts. 6. In the Synopsis of Psellus, for the reference of a subject to the things it denotes. 7. Most commonly in modern times, for the conclusion of an argument from consequence and consequent to antecedent. This is my use of the term. 8. For such a conclusion when too weak to be a theory accepted into the body of a science. I give a few authorities to support the seventh use: Chauvin. -- Lexicon Rationale, 1st Ed. -- "Hypothesis est propositio, quæ assumitur ad probandum aliam veritatem incognitam. Requirunt multi, ut hæc hypothesis vera esse cognoscatur, etiam antequam appareat, an alia ex ea deduci possint. Verum aiunt alii, hoc unum desiderari, ut hypothesis pro vera admittatur, quod nempe ex hac talia deducitur, quæ respondent phænomenis, et satisfaciunt omnibus difficultatibus, quæ hac parte in re, et in iis quæ de ea apparent, occurrebant." ---------------- Am 24. November 2016 02:11:57 MEZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee <[email protected]>: >Dear list: > > > >Here is how I see Peirce to have conceived of democracy: > > > >“The best republic is the ideally perfect, the second the best on >earth, >the third the best *ex hypotheseos,* under the circumstances.” > >~Peirce, *Some Consequences of Four Incapacities* > > > >“It has come about through the agencies of development that man is >endowed >with intelligence of such a nature that he can by ideal experiments >ascertain that in a certain universe of logical possibility certain >combinations occur while others do not occur. Of those which occur in >the >ideal world some do and some do not occur in the real world; but all >that >occur in the real world occur also in the ideal world. > >For the real world is the world of sensible experience, and it is a >part of >the process of sensible experience to locate its facts in the world of >ideas.” > >~ Peirce, Logic of Relatives > > > >“It is safer to try to understand the low in the light of the high than >the >high in the light of the low. In doing the latter one necessarily >distorts >the high, whereas in doing the former one does not deprive the low of >the >freedom to reveal itself as fully as what it is.” ~ Leo Strauss > > >"It appears to have been virtually the philosophy of Socrates." > >~Peirce > > > >“Liberal education supplies us with experience in things beautiful.” > >~Strauss, *What is Liberal Education?* > >*___________* > > > >Here is how I see Peirce to have conceived of Aristotle: > > > >“Whether the form or the substratum is the essential nature of a >physical >object is not yet clear. But that the principles are three, and in what >sense, and the way in which each is a principle, is clear.” > >~Aristotle, *Physics* > > > >“We naturally choose three as the smallest number which will answer the >purpose.” > >~Peirce, *Logic of Relatives* > > > >Hth… > > > >Best, >Jerry Rhee > >*CP 5.189* > >On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:50 PM, sb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Gary, List, >> >> long speak, short forgotten conclusions: I believe that two >directions >> could be fruitful to understand Peirce idea of democracy better. >First, >> thinking with Habermas that (ideal) scientific communities can be a >> blueprint for (ideal) democracies. Second, diving deeper into Peirce >ethics >> in comparison to Socrates idea of Ethics. Peirce makes a few short >comments >> about Socrates as one of the forefathers of pragmatism (it's a wild >guess, >> but there could be something interesting) >> >> Best, >> Stefan >> >> >> Am 23. November 2016 23:29:37 MEZ, schrieb Gary Richmond < >> [email protected]>: >>> >>> Stefan, List, >>> >>> Stefan, thanks for bringing together these several relevant Peirce >>> quotations. You concluded your post: >>> >>> 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... >>> >>> I'm not so sure that reflecting on Aristotle's views in this matter >will >>> help us much in getting at Peirce's. I would , however, tend to >strongly >>> agree with you that "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." >>> I'm not sure why this brought Aristotle's classification >"immediately" to >>> your mind given that Aristotle's views would seem to have little to >do with >>> religion, love, and greed. As for Peirce's view (if not exactly of >>> democracy, at least of what underpins political economy), it seems >to me to >>> be admirably represented by this quotation which you offered which >>> contrasts the Gospel of Christ (i.e., of Love) with the Gospel of >Greed. >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Peirce most surely did not have anything good to say about social >>> Darwinism. >>> >>> While for Aristotle democracy is not a good form of government, one >ought >>> recall that for him the concept of democracy is rule by the indigent >or >>> needy (I'm not sure why this gets democracy placed among the >'egoistic' >>> forms of government). The better form for him is, as in your diagram >above, >>> that of the *politeía* composed, I take it, of those with enough >time >>> and resources to pursue virtue (one might assume, in the interest of >the >>> general good), so certainly not the common people. *Politeía* is, >>> however, a problematic term in Aristotle's work and is to this day >much >>> debated as he does not use it in a consistent sense in *Politics*. >But, >>> in any event, even a benevolent monarchy is preferable to a >democracy in >>> Aristotle's sense of that concept. >>> >>> 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 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:06 PM, sb <[email protected]> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> -- >> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail >> gesendet. >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY >ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in >the >> BODY of the message. More at >http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
