I share your surprise, Jerry.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 5.2.2017 19:26:
John, Edwina, List:
I am more than a bit surprised by the assertions that the Middle Ages
gave birth to "Empirism".
Does anyone have a convenient reference to the historical emergence of
this term in philosophy?
Cheers
Jerry
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
John:
Agreed, empiricism started in the 'middle ages' - and my point is
that no 'thought-ideology' exists in a vacuum. Empiricism became an
observable if peripheral force in the 13th century, as did the shift
towards empowering individuals.
I consider that philosophical ideologies do not exist in a vacuum
but co-exist with political ideologies. My point is which ones are
dominant?
No- I am not confusing societal 'logic' [??]....with scientific
logic. [I hate the term _sociological_ for the abuses of thought
found within so many sociology treatises]... Philosophic ideology is
not the same as scientific logic. I am suggesting that a
philosophical ideology is correlated with a societal ideology - and
that empiricism, which began at least to emerge in open discourse in
the 13th c, is correlated with the political ideology that affirmed
support for individual interaction with the world.
I certainly agree: Peirce wasn't political at all. My point is only
that HIS analysis, with its three categories, works very well to
disempower the extremes of both empiricism and idealism.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
FROM: John Collier
TO: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L
SENT: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:12 AM
SUBJECT: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I don’t agree. Edwina. Empiricism started in the Middle ages and
went through periods of profound social transformation since while
being changed relatively little.
I don’t think it is a political ideology.
I think that confusing sociological and scientific logic with each
together leads to confusion, with which your post is rife. Much of
what you say about empiricism just strikes me as irrelevant, with
multitude counterexamples I won’t go into here except to note that
empiricism co-existed with m any political ideologies.
I don’t think that Peirce was particularly political in his logic
or methodology, though I understand his politics tended to towards
the conservative. He didn’t write much about real political issues
of his time, and I doubt it was a major influence in his overall
though.
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1]
FROM: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]]
SENT: Sunday, 05 February 2017 5:58 PM
TO: John Collier <[email protected]>; Peirce-L
<[email protected]>
SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I think that even a philosophical ideology , eg, the 'classic form
of empiricism', has to be grounded in the societal infrastructure.
Political ideologies certainly must be grounded; I think it's an
error to say, for example, the 'democracy is the best political
system', for any political system must give political power to that
section of the population that produces wealth and so enables
continuity of that society. If the majority of the population are
producing wealth, then, democracy is the most functional political
system. If only a minority are producing wealth [and this was the
case for most of mankind's economic history], then, democracy would
be dysfunctional.
What about philosophical ideologies? Are they isolated from
grounding in the societal infrastructure? I've outlined my view of
the enormous societal impact of the rise of empiricism, which
empowered ordinary individuals to interact, as they saw fit, with
the world. The slippery slope downside is that it easily moves into
the randomness of postmodern relativism and chaos.
What about realism? How does it societally function? It removes the
individual from sole access to 'truth' and inserts a 'community of
scholars'. This removes randomness from the analysis. It posits a
truth system based around general rules, where individual
articulations of these rules are just that: individual and transient
versions but almost minor in their real-life power except as
versions of those rules. This has its own slippery slope of
fundamental determinism and we've seen the results in many eras in
our world history, including modern times.
Peirce dealt with this with his focus on the freedom of Firstness
and his view that the rules [Thirdness] evolve and adapt. This would
enable a society to have a rule of law, with local variations -
something required in a 'growth society' - i.e., a modern society as
differentiated from a no-growth or pre-industrial society.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
FROM: John Collier
TO: Jerry LR Chandler
CC: Peirce List ; Eric Charles ; Helmut Raulien
SENT: Sunday, February 05, 2017 3:18 AM
SUBJECT: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - “The union of
units unifies the unity”
Jerry, I think we are using ‘empiricism’ differently. I was
using it in the classic form, not just to refer to anyone who uses
the natural world as a touchstone for clarifying meaning and
discovering the truth. I am an empiricist in this latter sense, but
not the former.
-------------------------
-----------------------------
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 [2] .
-----------------------------
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 [2] .
Links:
------
[1] http://web.ncf.ca/collier
[2] 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 [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 .
