Jeff, List: Thanks for once again giving all of us this important reminder. It probably goes without saying that my focus tends to be on #1; after all, how can we claim that something we advocate is genuinely Peircean, without first carefully ascertaining what Peirce's own considered views were? Of course, this is not always an easy task, due to the voluminous and fragmented nature of his compiled writings. On the other hand, my recent series of articles about "The Logic of Ingenuity" falls under #4; that label and some of the associated ideas are my own, but I still try to stick with Peirce's definitions of the underlying concepts like "retroduction" and "diagrams." As I have said before, I find it inappropriate--Peirce went so far as to call it unethical--to adopt his terminology while assigning different meanings to it, such that the result might *appear* to be Peircean, but really is not (per #1).
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < [email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, Jon S., List, All, > > As I have suggested on other occasions, it will likely improve the quality > of our discussions if we make our aims clearer when we make a remark > or engage in a line of inquiry. That way, we'll have some assurance that > different people aren't working at cross purposes or talking past each > other. Here are some of the purposes I see guiding our various discussions: > > 1. We want to understand some conclusion that Peirce has drawn and > determine whether or not it really was the position that he adopted at some > point in his inquiries, or perhaps was his considered view all things > considered. > > 2. We seek to reconstruct some of the arguments found in one or another > text to see we might gain a better understanding of how the arguments > work--and how they fit with other arguments Peirce made. > > 3. We want to better understanding Peirce's own aims and methods. He says > that one of his major aims was to develop a method of methods. As such, > we're trying to learn better how to employ these methods in our own > inquiries. > > 4. We are guided by a hunch that Peirce had some useful ideas, and we want > to borrow some of those ideas, modify as needed for our own purposes, and > then engage in our own inquiries. > > 5. We are pursuing our own inquiries using our own methods and, for the > sake of curiosity, we want to see how our own methods and > conclusions compare to some of Peirce's. At times, when the views diverge, > some might want to suggest that Peirce was likely wrong or > seriously misguided--at least when viewed in from the perspective of our > own methods and conclusions. > > 6. We have our own views and methods and we don't care much about what > Peirce really thought--except to point out that some things he said appear, > on their face, to be entirely crazy. > > Posts that fit the description under (6) seem out of place on the list. > They are distracting and tend to undermine the health of the discussion of > those pursuing the other aims. The aims expressed in 1-3 have, I take it, > been guiding much of the discussion on the list since its inception when > Joe expressed the guidelines for engaging in the dialogue. Personally, I have > found myself doing the things listed in 4-5 at various times in my own > reading thinking, but much of my work is guided by the aims expressed in > 1-3. Having said that, each of us needs to make a decision about when it is > appropriate to make posts to the list when our aims fall under (4) or > (5)--especially when we are jumping into a conversation between people who > are really guided by aims (1-3). For those who do think it is reasonable to > jump into such conversations and make remarks that are really guided by > such different purposes, it will help to spell out the purposes so others > don't waste their time trying to respond by showing, based on textual > evidence, that such a view does not reasonably reflect what is found in the > texts. > > Finally, to respond to your remark about those who spend time focusing on > the way Peirce defined key terms--such work is essential to doing 1-3 well. > It certainly isn't the only thing that needs to be done, but for such > purposes, it is an important starting point. > > I fully recognize that there is a considerable difference between the aim > of seeking to find the truth about Peirce's own views and how he arrived at > such conclusions, and the aim of pushing inquiry further and seeking the > truth, all things considered. Both are admirable goals, and those of us who > seek to engage in the more scholarly task usually do so with a longer term > goal of drawing on the arguments and methods for the sake of finding the > truth about the questions at hand. > > My hope in making these points is to remind myself that my purposes may > not always match the purposes of others, and I want to avoid the confusion > and conflicts that arise when people work at cross purposes. My hope is > that others, too, will make their purposes clearer--especially when they > say things that, on their face, do not fit well with the arguments and > explanations Peirce gives. As Jon S. has pointed out, your remarks about > definitions do not fit with Peirce's methods--both with respect to doing > the history of philosophy and also with respect to doing philosophy. > > Yours, > > Jeff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354> >
----------------------------- 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 .
