Gary, list:
I don’t know the context but on its own, I disagree with what you quote, “There is no "answer" or "solution." because “*The only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim*.” ~Peirce, *EP2:202* That is, there is a break in common sense whereas commonsense is whole. Best, Jerry R On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > List, > > Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, like Clark I too am a bit behind in > my reading and reflecting on the posts in this thread (I've managed to read > each one through but once). I hope to do much more reflecting by early next > week. > > Meanwhile, my own sense is that one possible strength of Peirce's theory > lies in his philosophical* summum bonum*, namely, the notion of our > seeking the 'reasonable in itself'. It follows that--and here one perhaps > necessarily goes beyond a consideration of democracy--when this *summum > bonum* is offered in consideration, now not of mere science, but of what > have been called the 'wicked problems' confronting humanity and the world, > that one might hope for approaches (if not exactly solutions) which appear > reasonable for those communities of interest hoping to address them. > Regarding those 'wicked problems' (you probably have your own short list, > while mine, I must admit, is quite long), Douglas Schuler today wrote: > > There is no "answer" or "solution." I think the approach that we must take > (with no guarantees of success) is straightforward: we must build the > necessary intellectual-emotional-normative-social-organizational > infrastructure that *could* enable us to move forward. The name I use for > that is "civic intelligence." > > > Here's an online slideshow outlining Schuler's idea of 'civic intelligenc'. > http://www.slideshare.net/dougschuler/improving-civic-intell > igence-repairing-the-engine-on-a-moving-car > > It seems to me that 'civic intelligence' is in some ways anticipated by > Peirce and, possibly, facilitated by certain ideas in his philosophy. I'll > leave it at that for now, but hope to connect Peirce's philosophy to > Schuler's approach (as well as that of my colleague, Aldo de Moor's > 'community sense') next week. O > > 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 Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 25, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> So, if Peirce wrote things about democracy, was opposed to female >> suffrage, and thought that a community should be ruled by an authoritative >> government, then I think that this is not relevant. He was out on a limb >> then, I presumptuously guess. >> >> >> One should note that the Burkean style of conservative was opposed to >> suffrage. It then quickly embraced it once it became clear (especially in >> the UK) that women actually shared their views on most matters. While again >> I’m not sure of Peirce’s views here, his critical common sensism clearly >> shows some influence from the broad contours of Burkeanism and its concern >> for tradition. >> >> A way of viewing this is that this style of conservatism requires a >> burden of proof to be met for significant change. (I’d say radical, but >> that’s perhaps too strong given the tendency to fear radical change and >> fight against it) In a certain way the level of democratic consensus >> necessary for these changes is a way of meeting that burden. Thus the small >> c conservatives would oppose change precisely in order in a community level >> for this burden to be met. Once met and it didn’t show significant >> practical problems then these types of Burkeans would consider it part of >> their tradition and become strong defenders. This method seems very alien >> and confusing but is a significant part of conservatism in both the >> American and British traditions. As I said I strongly suspect that’s where >> Peirce is. >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
