Stephen,
Your “challenge” was posted to the list, but I’m guessing it was aimed mainly at me, so here’s my answer. I’m assuming that the John Sowa post you refer to is the one linked to a Susan Haack article. Yes, I find it completely comprehensible. Not being an academic philosopher myself, I can’t comment on the accuracy of what Haack (and John) seem to be saying about the current state of the discipline; I just don’t know enough about it. But the quote from Peirce at the end of it is perfectly clear to me. Does that help me to see any connection between your post and Lowell 1.6? No, not at all. I don’t see any specific connection between Lowell 1.6 and John’s post, and I don’t think he intended one, or he would have used the Lowell 1.6 subject line. Maybe you didn’t intend such a specific connection either — but your subject line and the first sentence of your post certainly give the impression that you were responding to Lowell 1.6 and not making an off-the-cuff general comment about Peirce’s philosophy. By the way, it’s not considered good netiquette to copy a private message to a public list. If you find it offensive to be asked (offlist) for an explanation, I’ll refrain from doing that in the future. So I’ve learned a moral lesson, though I haven’t learned anything about Peirce from this exchange. Gary f. From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 4-Oct-17 10:33 To: Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]>; Peirce List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.6 This was sent to me and not to the list but I think either Deely or Deacon would have understood me without any explanation. Therefore I am issuing a simple challenge. If the post you find baffling is that baffling and John Sowa's post which follows it is completely comprehensible, I am entirely in agreement with it. Does that help? I have said in successive posts that Peirce is a moral philosopher. That is obvious. I have worked for a few years now on the premise that philosophy as an academic exercise is largely irrelevant. Susan, quoted by John, says this quite damningly. I am in the same camp. I assume you are there also. As I have stated more than once, writing to this forum has been frustrating. I divide Peirce into a large area I do not comprehend (the mathematical and categorical) and a smaller one that I feel inspires a post-Aristotelian world. I will continue on this path. But if my posts simply baffle I will save you time and me frustration by merely reading and not confusing you and others. amazon.com/author/stephenrose <http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:16 AM, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Hola Stephen, I think this is your most baffling post yet. I read it over three times and still fail to see any connection between any part of what you’ve said and what Peirce says in 1.6. I know you don’t like explaining what you say, but if you don’t try in this case, I’m afraid I can make no sense of it at all! gary From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: 4-Oct-17 09:49 To: Gary Fuhrman <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.6 Again we have Peirce in a teleological mode but not telling us he is conflating now with some time in the future. Maybe he does. His emphasis on fact is to denouement -- ultimate outcomes. It would be like saying people are not populating their homes with as many guns as once was the case, but that gun purchases rise among the gun-inclined. This is true. But ultimately it might be more logical not to allow hurt and harm to be possible. Continuity is the route. Fallibility is the condition. Logic is the end. amazon.com/author/stephenrose <http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose>
----------------------------- 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 .
