Kirsti, list:
If the French style of writing relies on argumentation- within the text at hand- and it is assumed that any reader is thoroughly familiar with the sources, then the reader ought to know that “see-my-otics” has a suffix that is of Greek origin. So, what is it we know about what the Greeks knew such that when Peirce writes, he knew to write to that reader who knew what a Greek did know? Well, at the very least, we ought to know that a Greek would know that: “Greek philosophy seems to begin with an absurd notion, with the proposition that *water* is the primal origin and the womb of all things. Is it really necessary for us to take serious notice of this proposition? It is, and for three reasons… The *first* reason still leaves Thales in the company of the religious and the superstitious; the *second* takes him out of such company and shows him as a natural scientist, but the *third* makes him the first Greek philosopher. Subsequent reflection comes with measuring devices and routinizing patterns and tries to replace analogy with equation and synchronicity with causality. The Greeks, among whom Thales stood out so suddenly, were the very opposite of realists, in that they believed only in the *reality of men and gods*, looking upon all of nature as but a disguise, a masquerade, or a metamorphosis of these god-men. Man, for them was the truth and the core of all things; everything else was but semblance and the play of illusion. .. Herein they were the exact opposite of modern man. For us, even the most personal is sublimated back into an abstraction; for them, the greatest abstraction kept running into a person. But Thales said, “Not man, but water is the reality of all things.” Being a mathematician and astronomer, he had turned cold against everything mythical and allegorical, and if he did not become quite sober enough to reach the pure abstraction “all things are one,” instead remaining at a concrete expression of it, he was nonetheless an alien rarity among the Greeks of his time. The Greek word designating “sage” is etymologically related to *sapio*, I taste, *sapiens*, he who tastes, *sisyphos* the man of keenest taste. A sharp savoring and selecting, a meaningful discriminating, in other words, makes out the peculiar art of the philosopher, in the eyes of the people. Philosophy is distinguished from science by its selectivity and its discrimination of the unusual, the astonishing, the difficult and the divine, just as it is distinguished from intellectual cleverness by its emphasis on the useless. Science rushes headlong, without selectivity, without "taste," at whatever is knowable, in the blind desire to know all at any cost. Philosophical thinking, on the other hand, is ever on the scent of those things which are most worth knowing, the great and the important insights. Ethics, or the science of right and wrong, must appeal to Esthetics for aid in determining the *summum bonum*. It is the theory of self-controlled, or deliberate, conduct. Now the concept of greatness is changeable, in the realm of morality as well as in that of esthetics. And so philosophy starts by legislating greatness. Part of this is a sort of name-giving. “Who taught thee me to name?” *The philosopher seeks to hear within himself the echoes of the world symphony and to re-project them in the form of concepts*. "What verse is for the poet, dialectical thinking is for the philosopher. He grasps for it in order to get hold of his own enchantment, in order to perpetuate it. And just as for the dramatist words and verse are but the stammering of an alien tongue, needed to tell what he has seen and lived, what he could utter directly only through music or gesture, just so every profound philosophic intuition expressed through dialectic and through scientific reflection is the only means for the philosopher to communicate what he has seen. But it is a sad means; basically a metaphoric and entirely unfaithful translation into a totally different sphere and speech. Thus Thales had seen the unity of all that is, but when he went to communicate it, he found himself talking about water!” ~ Nietzsche, Tragic Age of the Greeks *It rather annoys me to be told that there is anything novel in my three categories; for if they have not, however confusedly, been recognized by men since men began to think, that condemns them at once. * *To make them as distinct as it is in their nature to be is, however, no small task*.” ~Peirce Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:52 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > In my view Gary R. is gravely wrong in assuming that CSP was all his > life after SIGNS. That was earlier. Later he was after meanings. > > > > Heidegger was never attempting to create any theory of SIGNS. He was > after meanings. Thus he turned into our ancient Greek heritance. And did > not accept the modern meanings attacted to the basic concepts. - He > re-interpreted them. > > > > With this he truly was in line with Peirce. > > I think this is right, although the place of Being is different - although > even there some of the ways Peirce uses the copula is interesting as we > discussed back in the reading club on Natural Signs. > > > In 1970's ( and onwards) Peirce became kind of covertly famous in > Europe. His writings were studied by the top philosophers. But his name was > seldom, if ever mentioned. > > That’s interesting. I was familiar with Derrida’s and of course Habermas > but I didn’t know there were others. > > > Since I read Heidegger's Time and Being, It has been quite clear to me > that he was after something akin to Peirce. - Kind of muddled Peirce, I > thought. > > > > Afterwards I read about all Heidegger has written. And was even more > convinced that my idea was valid. > > I want to respond to Gary in some depth. Unfortunately my kids are > starting school, my wife is 7 months pregnant, and we have an important > client coming at work. But I am not posting and running. I think he raises > some really important issues. > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
