John, List: JFS: I believe that both reviewers saw the same issues, and they represent complementary rather than opposite opinions.
What struck me was the vast difference in tone. Houser sought to give a fair summary of the book's contents, and then offered that one last paragraph about its "shortcomings." By contrast, Short was negative and dismissive throughout. JFS: Short noted that Forster quoted very few of the citations verbatim, and his summaries and paraphrases used terminology that CSP himself never used. There are lots of verbatim quotes in the footnotes, and sometimes a summary or paraphrase in different words can be genuinely helpful. Otherwise, there would be little or no need for the secondary literature at all. JFS: Whether you call it general, inaccurate, distorted, or unreliable is a matter of opinion. It seems telling that three of the four options that you presented here are negative, and the other one is neutral. As I recall, Forster included the date with most of his Peirce citations--a practice that I have adopted myself, on this List and elsewhere--so as a reader, I was able to see clearly when he was drawing from earlier vs. later material. I did not sense the latter to be lacking to the extent that Short, especially, implied. JFS: It may be a useful introduction, but it's important to read Peirce's originals for a more precise understanding of the issues. On this, we are in complete agreement. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:32 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 1/10/2017 2:21 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > >> Forster's /Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism/. >> > > Re: The favorable review by Nathan Houser and the highly critical > review by T. L. Short. > > I believe that both reviewers saw the same issues, and they > represent complementary rather than opposite opinions. > > The last paragraph of Houser's review summarizes the "shortcomings". > From http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/ > > But there are shortcomings that must be mentioned; most notably >> Forster's mixing of references to Peirce's early and later writings >> and, to some extent, a neglect of Peirce's more developed ideas. >> For example, Forster makes frequent reference to symbols as the class >> of intellectual signs that pragmatism addresses, but it will be known >> to readers acquainted with Peirce's late semiotic writings that there >> are several kinds of symbolic signs, including arguments, and it might >> be wondered whether Forster means to refer to all of them. Also, there >> are some signs that are not symbols (e.g., different classes of >> legisigns) which are general signs and might be supposed to be subject >> to pragmatic analysis. One wonders whether Forster had Peirce's early >> work in mind where he used just three classes of signs: icons, indexes, >> and symbols. Another example is what Forster says about Peirce's proof >> of pragmatism. He concentrates on Peirce's earliest proof, which Peirce >> found to be inadequate, and neglects his later sustained attempts to >> formulate more satisfactory proofs. Forster ingeniously reconstructs >> an alternative to Peirce's early proof based on his early semiotic >> conceptions, but he doesn't mention that in 1907 Peirce constructed >> his own proof of pragmatism also based on an analysis of semiotic >> conceptions.[5] These shortcomings, as well as Forster's decision, >> however practical, not to examine related work of other scholars, >> detract from the usefulness of his book as a sourcebook for Peirce's >> main theories and doctrines. But as an account of Peirce's answer to >> nominalism and as a general account of Peirce's overall system of >> philosophy, Forster's book is a notable accomplishment. >> > > These are the issues that Short emphasized, and I believe rightly so. > Short noted that Forster quoted very few of the citations verbatim, > and his summaries and paraphrases used terminology that CSP himself > never used. > > By ignoring the development from Peirce's early to later views, > Forster created what Houser called "a general account" of Peirce's > system. Whether you call it general, inaccurate, distorted, or > unreliable is a matter of opinion. It may be a useful introduction, > but it's important to read Peirce's originals for a more precise > understanding of the issues. > > John
----------------------------- 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 .
