> On Jan 10, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I would be interested in getting your take on Forster's book whenever you > finish it. Nathan Houser wrote a review > (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/ > <http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/>) that > included a few criticisms at the end, but Thomas Short was quite scathing in > his Transactions review, mainly (as far as I can tell) because Forster had > the audacity to write a different book than Short would have on the same > subject. Personally, I found it very helpful, which is why I decided to > invest in my own copy. >
I will. I’ve enjoyed it thus far although in a few places I think he jumps a little ahead of what his quotes actually show. But thus far it’s very good at putting together Peirce’s actual arguments. Far too many philosophical books treat a person’s ideas as kind of dogma that needs to be historically situated. Philosophy is supposed to be more than that and Forster does a good job (thus far anyway) of dealing with the reasoning. The NDPR review does make some good points about mixing Peirce from different periods. Normally that’s something I really keep an eye on as in some ways his thought changes a lot. Here though I’m not convinced it’s as big a deal. There’s also the criticism of not drawing enough nuance and differences in various topics like Symbol. I haven’t found that yet, but that’s possibly because I’m not really at that part of the book yet. It also notes Forster neglects the mature Peirce’s arguments for pragmatism. If true that is a big failing. However if the focus is on the threat of nominalism then probably it’s in the early Peirce one sees his fear. So this might be one of the few areas I’d prefer the earlier Peirce to the mature Peirce. To the Short crtique, I know Joe Ransdell didn’t think much of several of Short’s views of Peirce. I’ve not read his review of Forster but wonder if some of those differences matter here. In particular how one views Peirce’s changing views. Clearly he changed somewhat but many, such as Ransdell, think he changed less than I believe Short does. I can’t recall what Joe’s view on the development of Peirce’s modal realism which I think most date to the late 1890’s although hints of it are in the logic of what he wrote before that.
----------------------------- 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 .
