As regards the 200 emails, It is obvious why we don’t appreciate that. It is not so obvious that we appreciate *Gorgias* and Peirce’s sense of humor for a similar reason. On the topic of Discovering the American Aristotle, Peirce also said *of it*, remember: Aristotle was not much of a Greek. That he was not altogether a Greek-minded man is manifest. ..like the Aristotelianism which is this gentleman's particular *bête noire*, it will be as Shakespeare said (*of it*, remember): "Not harsh and crabbed, as dull fools suppose, But musical as is Apollo's lute,” etc*.* For philosophic readers he would do almost more than enough by drawing their attention to the fact that he did not object to telling lies which were noble, or tales which were merely similar to truth. For the burden of proof rests with the censor. ..he must show that certain literary deficiencies of the work are not due to chance, but that the author used a given ambiguous expression deliberately, or that he constructed a certain sentence badly on purpose. To argue this, however, is to presuppose that the esoteric writer had a phenomenal control over his text; indeed, it is to presuppose that his text is constructed like a living animal, in which each and every part, no matter how accidental it seems, functions to create the overall meaning. I do not doubt that you are wiser than I; but it is always my custom to pay attention when anyone is speaking, especially when the speaker seems to me to be wise; and because I desire to learn what he means.. Ἰδέα is here used in its Platonic sense, as a synonym for εἶδος, class-form, to denote the permanent immaterial reality that underlies any group of things classed together in virtue of possessing a common quality. An ἰδέα is perceptible only by the mind, but the word does not denote the content of a mental perception, as does the derivative 'idea' in ordinary English. With best wishes, Jerry R On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 11:51 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excellent piece. And excellent quote which I think I had better paste in. > I created the triad Reality Ethics Aesthetics as a suggested post-Peirce > basis for philosophy. It fits in with previous quotes in this thread and > explicitly so with the following: > “Esthetics and logic seem at first blush to belong to different universes > . . . . [But] that seeming is illusory; on the contrary, logic needs the > help of esthetics.” Just as it needs the help of ethics: “Logical goodness > and badness, which we shall find is simply the distinction of *Truth *and > *Falsity*in general, amounts in the last analysis to nothing but a > peculiar application of the more general distinction of Moral Goodness and > Badness, or Righteousness and Wickedness.” Peirce does not mean to equate > these three realms, of course, for that would lead to the conclusion that > every fallacy is a sin, which is absurd. But he does insist, in a manner > reminiscent of Cardinal Newman, that “good morals and good reasoning are > closely allied.” > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All: >> >> A quarter of a century ago (December 1993), several of the subjects of >> this discussion thread (either explicit, implied, or merely mentioned) were >> rather eloquently addressed in an article in *First Things*, >> "Discovering the American Aristotle," by Edward T. Oakes: >> >> https://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/12/003-discovering- >> the-american-aristotle >> >> >> *Ben Novak* >> 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=5129+Taylor+Drive,+Ave+Maria,+FL+34142&entry=gmail&source=g> >> Telephone: (814) 808-5702 >> Mobile: (814) 424-8501 >> >> *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts >> themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar >> of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and >> a sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear >> accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Jon. That is a direct confirmation of the rather over the top >>> dispatch of Aristotle in the quote I sent. My own work maintained initially >>> that Aristotle's ethics were responsible for the ethical problems of our >>> first two millennia and I laid that at the feet of his reliance on virtues >>> which is indisputable. OTH Aristotle reads almost modern and cannot be >>> superseded by Peirce unless others see his work as seismic in the same >>> sense that A's work became seen. I see Shakespeare as a pre-Percean and a >>> marvelous antidote to virtues ethics. S >>> >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >>> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> List: >>>> >>>> As the chief culprit for the recent glut of messages--apparently I was >>>> the sender of more than one-third of the 200+ over the first 11 days of >>>> February--I offer my sincere apology, and my promise to try to temper my >>>> enthusiasm for the current discussion topics, or at least "pace myself" (as >>>> the saying goes) in responding. Please do not hesitate to contact me >>>> directly off-List if you think that I am getting out of hand again. >>>> >>>> I am replying in this thread only because I believe that the following >>>> excerpt provides a direct answer to Stephen R.'s question about whether >>>> Peirce classified Aristotle as a nominalist. >>>> >>>> CSP: Aristotle held that Matter and Form were the only elements of >>>> experience. But he had an obscure conception of what he calls >>>> *entelechy*, which I take to be a groping for the recognition of a >>>> third element which I find clearly in experience. Indeed it is by far the >>>> most overt of the three. It was this that caused Aristotle to overlook it >>>> ... Aristotle, so far as he is a nominalist, and* he may, I think, be >>>> described as a nominalist with vague intimations of realism*, >>>> endeavors to express the universe in terms of Matter and Form alone ... It >>>> may be remarked that if, as I hold, there are three categories, Form, >>>> Matter, and Entelechy, then there will naturally be seven schools of >>>> philosophy; that which recognizes Form alone, that which recognizes Form >>>> and Matter alone, that which recognizes Matter alone (these being the three >>>> kinds of nominalism); that which recognizes Matter and Entelechy alone; >>>> that which recognizes Entelechy alone (which seems to me what a perfectly >>>> consistent Hegelianism would be); that which recognizes Entelechy and Form >>>> alone (these last three being the kinds of imperfect realism); and >>>> finally the true philosophy which recognizes Form, Matter, and Entelechy. >>>> (NEM 4:294-295; c. 1903?, emphasis added) >>>> >>>> >>>> This is part of a lengthy passage where, as I have remarked in other >>>> recent threads, Peirce explicitly associated Form with 1ns (quality or >>>> suchness), Matter with 2ns (the subject of a fact), and Entelechy with 3ns >>>> (that which brings together Matter and Form; i.e., Signs). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 173. But fallibilism cannot be appreciated in anything like its true >>>>> significancy until evolution has been considered. This is what the world >>>>> has been most thinking of for the last forty years -- though old enough is >>>>> the general idea itself. Aristotle's philosophy, that dominated the world >>>>> for so many ages and still in great measure tyrannizes over the thoughts >>>>> of >>>>> butchers and bakers that never heard of him -- is but a metaphysical >>>>> evolutionism. >>>>> >>>>> Peirce: CP 1.174 Cross-Ref:†† >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Interesting. Has anyone done a study of Peirce and Aristotle. In what >>>>> did Peirce's alleged tyranny consist? This is in something I found in an >>>>> old book I have but it is also in CP. Did classify Aristotle as a dualist >>>>> or nominalist? Or more narrowly as here? >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .