Jerry, List, here is what I meant with the constructivist imperative: It is the "ethical imperative" by Heinz von Foerster, developed from Kant´s categorical imperative: "Always act in a way that makes the number of possibilities of actions increase". I think this would exclude the pursuit of ultimate aims. Lest you define this increase as ultimate aim. But this I find hard, though our economy is based on constant growth too. But I guess this makes it less ultimate in the sense of sustainability. Anyway, "ultimate" is a quibble-term, isn´t it? Best, Helmut.
----------------------------- 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 .
17. März 2018 um 22:13 Uhr
"Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear list,
What a crazy.. uh, I mean creative concept, this having an ultimate aim.
There must, then, be more to this..
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Stephen, List,I agree. To bring in aesthetics is triadic thinking: Like the sign (representamen) mediates between the object and the interpretant, aesthetics mediates between logic and ethics: It is the bridge from "is" to "ought". But I think there are two kinds of bridge, one false and one right. The false bridge is seeing aesthetics as confining thoughts to an "ultimate end of action", this is the naturalist fallacy. The good bridge, as I see it, is aesthetics in accord with the constructivist imperative, freeing thoughts and helping them evolve to a good, well, not end, but intermediate station of ethics based on both ratio and aesthetics. I hope this is what Peirce meant, but am afraid he didn´t, for he was using the term "ultimate", which in this context sounds odd.Best, Helmut----------------------------- 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 .The notion of aesthetics as a significant conclusion to ethical reflection, assuming we are talking about finite decisions that will inevitably have some fallibility, is to me revolutionary. Why? Ask yourself how far we have gotten assuming that power alone can bring about good. It was the Bush (W) presupposition that shock and awe was compatible with the evolving of democracy. Mao also thought that revolution could be won by force. That is binary thought that is still rife. But what we think and its relation to Peirce is at best tangental. To say what we think he thought different than saying what we think independently of Peirce.On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:Jon, List,OK, I had misunderstood it in a way as if for Peirce "an ultimate end of action" was his esthetic ideal, that would the end of life too, an apocalypse. But he meant it specific, i.e. only if deliberately adopted. But still there is the conclusion "the only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim". I donot have an ultimate aim, and donot want to have one, because I think that would be apocalyptic fundamentalism. This makes me moralically evil in Peirce´s view. I in return think, that this view is evil. It is the crassest form of naturalistic fallacy, and the opposite of the constructivist imperative, that identifies a good aim not with the end of thoughts, but with enlarging the number of possible thoughts.But still, maybe, and I hope that it is so, I too strictly and biasedly suppose biophoby to the pursuit of an "ultimate end of action"?Best, Helmut
-----------------------------
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 .
