Kirsti, list, You'll have to give me and the list reasons for your saying this:
KS: I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true views on science and vitally important matters. First, I have no idea what you mean by Peirce's "despair." I don't see any "despair" expressed in the lecture I commented on nor in my interpretation of that lecture. In any event, I fully stand by my analysis and feel confident that I could support it by adding--to those I've already offered--dozens of quotes not only from "Reason and the Logic of Things," but from many sources. But just limiting myself to the lectures, I can say that I've read them so often that, while I couldn't say that I've memorized them as Peirce claimed he'd memorized Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, yet I know the structure and content of each lecture. On that basis I'd say that perhaps the principal theme if not the gist of the first is not an expression of despair at all, but simply that *one ought not mix theory and practice* (he explicitly argues against this mixing in the lecture). There's no despair whatsoever in that methodological idea. Indeed, he offers an extremely positive estimate of both within their own provinces. So, Kirsti, if you'd like to challenge my view on this, you'll have to offer some evidence and argumentation. Otherwise it's mere vapid criticism with no basis in fact. KB: The issue should be rethougth, I believe I'd be eager to have you help me rethink it on the list. While at the moment I have confidence that my view is supported not only by Peirce's discussion in the 1898 lectures, but in *many* other places in his work, as always, and in the spirit of Peirce, I would be delighted to have you prove me wrong. Then I'd have learned something I hadn't known and corrected an error in my thinking. Peirce called this approach 'Critical Commonsensism', and commented that his Pragmatism could be thought of as but a development of it. Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:11 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > Gary R. > > I do think you have mistaken CSP's exclamation of dispair for his true > views on science and vitally important matters. > > The issue should be rethougth, I believe. > > Kirsti > > Gary Richmond kirjoitti 2.3.2018 22:41: > >> Stephen quoted Peirce: >> >> _We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the >>> facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human >>> reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and >>> deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally >>> admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have >>> tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's glory! __Peirce: CP 1.627 >>> _ >>> >> >> In point of fact this quote is not from CP 1.627 but .626. >> >> But first consider that the method of scientific inquiry is not that >> of a jury, now is it? >> >> Indeed, the quotation exemplifies the reason why I as list moderator >> ask contributors to contextualize quotations (I usually do this >> off-list). The quotation above appears in the first lecture of the >> 1998 lectures published as _Reasoning and the Logic of Things_. >> >> When William James first proposed that Peirce give a series of >> lectures in Cambridge, he suggested in a letter that, rather then >> speaking on logic and science as he was wont to do, that instead >> Peirce ought speak on "topics of vital importance" (which phrase >> appears in 1.622,.623 and variants at .626 and .636). Peirce, of >> course, chose to speak on what interested him at the time, including >> logic, inquiry and reasoning, and cosmology. >> >> In the first lecture, no doubt in part to explain to James why he >> hadn't taken his advice for a theme for the lecture series, he begins >> by arguing that "topics of vital importance" have nothing to do with a >> "theory of reasoning," which is a principal topic in his lectures. But >> they _do_ have their place, although not in scientific inquiry: ". . . >> in practical affairs, in matters of vital importance, it is very easy >> to exaggerate the importance of ratiocination" and in such matters >> Peirce will offer as alternatives 'instinct' and 'the sentiments'. It >> is this snippet just quoted that introduces the paragraph which >> concludes the quotation which Stephen offered. However, ". . . in >> theoretical matters I refuse to allow sentiment any weight whatsoever" >> (CP 1.634). >> >> Science, by which he means here, "pure theoretic knowledge," ". . . >> has nothing directly to say concerning practical matters" (CP 1.637), >> and it is best "to leave [cenoscopic] philosophy to follow perfectly >> untrammeled a scientific method" (CP 1.644). Thus, once he's >> concluded this discussion of topics of vital importance being little >> aided by our vain power of reason (witness the jury illustration!), he >> moves on in the lectures to follow to discussions of topics of >> scientific importance. >> >> Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive results >> of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be applied >> to matters of vital importance (for example, in medicine, etc.) >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> GARY RICHMOND >> PHILOSOPHY AND CRITICAL THINKING >> COMMUNICATION STUDIES >> LAGUARDIA COLLEGE OF THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK >> 718 482-5690 >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> _We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the >>> facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human >>> reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and >>> deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally >>> admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have >>> tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man's glory!_ >>> >>> _Peirce: CP 1.627 Cross-Ref:††_ >>> >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1] >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 [2] . >>> >> >> >> >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> [2] 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 .
