Hi Stefan, list: Well, the quote I selected is immediately followed by, "Freedom is the hypothesis or condition of democracy."
So, what's that about, then, if not about democracy? Also, the original quote has a very definite likeness to Plato's ideas, in particular, those in the *Republic* and even that in the *Laws*. So, then, what does Peirce and Plato say is useful about *likeness*? Best, Jerry R On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 7:45 PM, sb <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
