> On Dec 5, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > Going back to Kant (especially his ethics which are so tied to the in-itself) > this means that one can’t treat as fully transcendent laws. While Peirce’s > aesthetics are his least developed part of thought, he grounds ethics on > aesthetics. I think he’s mostly following Kant even if he doesn’t follow him > exactly. Kant you may recall has aesthetics as this weird feeling in general > without reference to particular phenomena but tied to phenomena in general. > It’s a kind of odd middle ground between the in-itself noumenal and > phenomenal realm. (I’ll confess I find Kant pretty difficult here)
Just to go along with the above, here’s a paper I came upon that deals with this explicitly. http://rkatkins.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PleasuresofGoodness.pdf <http://rkatkins.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PleasuresofGoodness.pdf> I think most people tend to think through this in terms of Aristotle more than Kant. But I think keeping in mind Peirce’s connection to Kant (especially in his earlier work) is important.
----------------------------- 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 .
