Helmut,
Re: “on one hand there is no thing in itself anyway, so they say”
To be clear, Peirce for one does not say this, he says only
that we have no conception of an inconceivable thing itself.
Regards,
Jon
On 12/15/2017 2:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Thank you too, Jon. I think the fallacious point of the naturalistic fallacy is
that you cannot conclude from "good for humans and other creatures", which can
be inferred to from phenomena and interpreting them, to "good in itself". But I
think this last breaking point is quite small, and the faith required for
stepping over it is not difficult to get and maintain, I think, because on one
hand there is no thing in itself anyway, so they say, and on the other there are
hints that "good" and "bad" are based on pure reason, e.g. the categorical
imperative, and on the third hand, observation of the universe does not deliver
clues of gnostic separation, like the earth or the human realm would be outcast
from the divine realm, or something like that. The whole title from Kohlbergs
paper is: "From is to ought, how to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away
with it". I don't know how to get this paper, or in which book it is, but I am
sure that it is good (for humans and other creatures), because at other places
Kohlberg´s points are so too.
Best,
Helmut
15. Dezember 2017 um 15:40 Uhr
"Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
Thanks, Helmut, that's a very apt observation.
I had posted this quote earlier on Facebook
in a couple of discussions of recent events
on the U.S. scene but then there was a line
in the passage Gary F. quoted from Peirce
that called it back to mind.
[PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.5
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-12/msg00149.html
CSP:
| That truth and justice are great powers in the world
| is no figure of speech, but a plain fact to which
| theories must accommodate themselves.
I read Theodore Parker's moral, notably paraphrased
in recent times by Martin Luther King, Jr., more as
natural analogy than naturalistic fallacy, but it's
true, many fallacies are rooted in analogies, icons,
metaphors, and poetic images that we naturally push
too far past their breaking points. It is a tricky
business, though, as all matters heuristical, since
we often learn much from straining analogies beyond
their natural limits and experimenting with ways to
repair them. Still, all eventually reach a natural
limit and many -isms that lead us astray in the end,
alchemism, biologism, conceptualism, dyadicism, and
too reductive styles of mechanism, physicalism, and
psychologism, stem from figures taken too literally.
For my part, I confess to being rather fickle
as far as faith in a moral universe goes, but
on a good day I try to keep a good thought as
long as I can.
Regards,
Jon
On 12/13/2017 5:53 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
I think, this post is about the naturalistic fallacy, is it? I want to recommend
a writing by Lawrence Kohlberg, whose book "The philosophy of moral development"
I have read, and the writing that surely suits to this topic, but which I have
not yet read, is called "From is to ought".
Best,
Helmut
13. Dezember 2017 um 22:16 Uhr "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> wrote:
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
I do not pretend to understand the moral universe;
the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways;
I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by
the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience.
And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.
— Theodore Parker
☞ https://books.google.com/books?id=eHgYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q&f=false
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
