Gene, Edwina, Kirsti, list Gene wrote:
EH: Regarding the potential for catastrophe, Gary R. stated, “that you would, however, find it difficult to find in Peirce very much support for your thesis.” The potential for catastrophe (regarding which I fully agree with you) was not the 'thesis' that I said you would "find it difficult to find In Peirce very much support." Re: "catastrophe" I fully agree with you since quotations we've both offered make Peirce's view of that quite clear, for example, his writing in 'Evolutionary Love' "The twentieth century, in its latter half, shall surely see the deluge-tempest burst upon the social order -- to clear upon a world as deep in ruin as that greed-philosophy has long plunged it into guilt." Indeed the "deluge-tempest" didn't even take as long as Peirce thought it would as the First World War broke out just a few months following his death. The rest of the horror of that century and the continued horror in this century, both brought about by the crazed greed and power seeking of a few men is, in my view, virtually self-evident. What I didn't agree with was your assertion that "The greed, power, and especially crypto-religious reverence for deus-ex-machina goals are not simply external to actually existing science and technology, but are essential features of the system." I have already given my reasons for disagreeing with you on that thesis so I won't repeat them now; and I assume that we are still in disagreement on this matter even while you've offered additional examples of "corruption within science itself." There is not an actual or even, I think, conceivable institution where one won't find corrupt men and women (mainly men). I also agree with Edwina that Peirce was entirely and explicitly opposed to Social Darwinism. In addition, your impugning of Peirce's character seems to me over the top. You wrote: EH: Peirce’s criticism of the greed philosophy, including a reference to how he was swindled, did not seem to apply to workers. In fact, his criticism of the philosophy of greed rings hypocritical when some of his other comments are taken into account, which read as similar to those of Carnegie. You will have to offer much more evidence if I'm to believe that Peirce's character and Carnegie's were "similar," that Peirce was "hypocritical" in his condemnation of the Gospel of Greed. And you draw some extraordinarily conclusions from a few facts and a single comment to Lady Welby by Peirce, while your question as to what side of the civil war Peirce would place himself based on his father's views is bogus. May none of our characters be judged on the basis of the views of our parents. You wrote: EH: As Peirce wrote to Lady Welby: “The people ought to be enslaved; only the slaveholders ought to practice the virtues that alone can maintain their rule.” (*Semiotics and Significs, *edited by Charles S. Hardwick (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1977), p. 78). Given that Peirce lived through the American civil war (not fighting in it), and that his father Benjamin had been pro-slavery before the war, Charles’s advocacy of a “virtuous” slaveholding elite strikes me as repugnant and puerile. Can you guess what side of the slaveholder/enslaved divide Peirce would put himself on? I do not take Peirce's comments about "the people" (not, btw, the African people held as slaves in America) literally. He is writing to a, I believe *relatively *liberal, friend in England, a woman whom he's gotten to know well through letters, one who will know that this is not to be taken literally (as you clearly have). I find his comment (in context) more along the lines of Jasper, very skeptical of majoritarian democracy, famously arguing for a form of government guided by "an intellectual elite." There is just too much else in Peirce suggesting that he upholds the ethics of the Gospel of Love, including, for an example recently discussed on the list, his support for Abbot against the unfair criticism of his work by Royce. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:41 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > 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 >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
