Stephen, List: Thanks for the reminder. Was there something specific that prompted you to post it at this time? Do you think that some of us are guilty of failing to maintain that distinction in some of our own posts?
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > The following is from the valuable CP an online PDF that contains eight > sections of the voluminous writings of Charles Sanders Peirce. In these > very words you will find the germ of a philosophy that I found more than > helpful for us all as we face the future. > > First the Pragmatic Maxim: > > 'The exact wording of the English enunciation, (changing only the first > person into the second,) was: "Consider what effects that might conceivably > have practical bearings you conceive the object of your conception to > have. Then your conception of those effects is the WHOLE of your conception > of the object." ' > > Then the reasoning: "It will serve to show that almost every proposition > of ontological metaphysics is either meaningless gibberish,—one word being > defined by other words, and they by still others, without any real > conception ever being reached,—or else is downright absurd; so that all > such rubbish being swept away, what will remain of philosophy will be a > series of problems capable of investigation by the observational methods of > the true sciences,—the truth about which can be reached without those > interminable misunderstandings and disputes which have made the highest of > the positive sciences a mere amusement for idle intellects, a sort of > chess,—idle pleasure its purpose, and reading out of a book its method. In > this regard, pragmaticism is a species of prope-positivism. But what > distinguishes it from other species is, first, its retention of a purified > philosophy; secondly, its full acceptance of the main body of our > instinctive beliefs; and thirdly, its strenuous insistence upon the truth > of scholastic realism, (or a close approximation to that, wellstated by the > late Dr. Francis Ellingwood Abbot in the Introduction to his Scientific > Theism). So, instead of merely jeering at metaphysics, like other > prope-positivists, whether by long drawn-out parodies or otherwise, the > pragmaticist extracts from it a precious essence, which will serve to give > life and light to cosmology and physics. At the same time, the moral > applications of the doctrine are positive and potent; and there are many > other uses of it not easily classed. On another occasion, instances may be > given to show that it really has these effects." > > This is a Peirce salvo at those who fail to note that he is no friend of > pragmatism, but rather the originator of what he came to call pragmaticism > and that distinction is explicit in the words you have just read. > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU >
----------------------------- 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 .
