Dear Helmut list: You said:
So maybe I was conflating dubitability (being not without doubt) with vagueness. I however do not understand the concept of vagueness, and can only guess that it might have to do with the paradoxity I had written about. CP 5.506: I have worked out the logic of vagueness with something like completeness,* but need not inflict more of it upon you at present. *Where? http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/complete-sign This is a specimen of certain lines of reflection which will inevitably suggest the hypothesis of God's Reality. It is not that such phenomena might not be capable of being accounted for, in one sense, by the action of chance with the smallest conceivable dose of a higher element; for if by God be meant the *Ens necessarium*, that very hypothesis requires that such should be the case. But the point is that that sort of explanation leaves a mental explanation just as needful as before… Hth, Jerry R On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, list, > Thank you. I have looked up "common-sensism" at Commens, and in 1905 | > Issues of Pragmaticism | EP 2:346-353; CP 5.439-452 (the first entry) he > writes, that the indubitable (that without doubt) is vague (for the > critical common-sensist). So maybe I was conflating dubitability (being not > without doubt) with vagueness. I however do not understand the concept of > vagueness, and can only guess that it might have to do with the paradoxity > I had written about. > Best, > Helmut > 15. Juni 2018 um 18:59 Uhr > "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Helmut, list, > > > Helmut wrote "you wrote, that freedom of speech is vital, and without > doubt." > > > In point of fact, Edwina wrote the first phrase and I agreed with her > adding the second phrase to emphasize the point. > > > HR: But on the other hand, shoah-denial, or showing the nazi-swastika > symbol is prohibited in most european countries (which prohibition I think > is good). > > > I don't think very many believe that there ought be *no* restrictions of > free speech whosoever. I don't know how it is in other countries but, for > example, in the USA to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no > fire is a criminal offense and, in my opinion, certainly ought to be. > > > HR: So, perhaps the scrutiny-dogma you wrote about should be extended to > "freedom of speech" too? > > > I wouldn't call it a 'dogma' but rather a 'method'. Indeed, the method I'm > advocating is pragmatism. > > > HR: I think, this scrutiny-dogma of yours rsp. of Scott´s is a better way > of solving the "dont say: dont say"-paradoxon that my > generalisation-scales-proposal inm y last post. > > > Peirce sometimes calls his version of pragmatism "critical > common-sensism," and I think this formulation works for scientific as well > as art criticical 'scrutiny'. > > Best, > > Gary > > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690* > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Gary, list, >> you wrote, that freedom of speech is vital, and without doubt. But on the >> other hand, shoah-denial, or showing the nazi-swastika symbol is prohibited >> in most european countries (which prohibition I think is good). So, perhaps >> the scrutiny-dogma you wrote about should be extended to "freedom of >> speech" too? I think, this scrutiny-dogma of yours rsp. of Scott´s is a >> better way of solving the "dont say: dont say"-paradoxon that my >> generalisation-scales-proposal inm y last post. >> Best, >> Helmut >> 15. Juni 2018 um 02:26 Uhr >> "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> >> >> Edwina, list, >> >> Edwina wrote: >> >> >> Gary R - yes, nicely put, and therefore: >> >> Thank you. Most of what I wrote was merely a reflection on the A. O. >> Scott quotations in light of pragmaticism. >> >> 1] Freedom of speech is vital; and, >> >> Without doubt! >> >> Edwina, commenting on Scott's remark that "the question is whether the >> thing in question can bear the scrutiny." >> >> 2] Not all belief systems are equally valid, are equally able to 'bear >> scrutiny' - and - this means that not all belief systems should be accepted >> without such scrutiny, or which refuse to allow scrutiny. >> >> >> Again, most certainly. Those "which refuse to allow scrutiny" are, in my >> opinion, by that very act disqualified (unless and until they allow for >> that scrutiny). >> >> So, every belief system ought be open to scrutiny and able to bear >> scrutiny. There are, of course, art works and scientific matters which are, >> shall we say, more difficult than others to scrutinize. If the object is >> 'at hand', 'there before us' for analysis, investigation, etc. it is one >> thing. But, for example, early cosmologies, cosmogonies, the Big Bang, >> non-standard or even religious cosmologies are by their very nature much >> more difficult to scrutinize. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *718 482-5690* >> >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Gary R - yes, nicely put, and therefore: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1] Freedom of speech is vital; and, >>> >>> 2] Not all belief systems are equally valid, are equally able to 'bear >>> scrutiny' - and - this means that not all belief systems should be accepted >>> without such scrutiny, or which refuse to allow scrutiny. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu 14/06/18 5:04 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected] sent: >>> >>> John, list, >>> >>> John wrote: >>> >>> >>> General principle: It's better to lead by example: recommend what >>> people should do than make blanket prohibitions about what they >>> shouldn't do. I believe that is what Peirce did most of the time. >>> >>> >>> I agree. And I believe that something like this is so for art criticism >>> as well. >>> >>> In my opinion one of the best art critics of our time is the New York >>> Times film critic, A.O.Scott. In his 2016 book, Better Living Through >>> Criticism, he argues that what good art criticism does is draw a >>> potential audience into what might prove to be for them a rewarding >>> aesthetic experience. This seems to me quite different from what too many >>> critics do in emphasizing what they found wanting or what they didn't like >>> about a work of art. This seems to echo John's "recommend what people >>> should do than make blanket prohibitions about what they shouldn't do." >>> >>> Offering something of the art critical equivalent of Peirce's >>> fallibilism in science, Scott writes: >>> >>> >>> "[T]he critic's task is to trace a twisted, looping, stutter-stepping, >>> incomplete path toward the truth, and as such to fight an unending battle >>> against premature and permanent certainty" A.O. Scott (162). >>> >>> >>> And to bring home this similarity--that for scientific knowledge too the >>> 'judgment' is never final--a few pages later he comments on the scientific >>> method in terms of falsification (Popper's version of 'fallibilism'). >>> >>> >>> "The essential modesty and rigor of the scientific method is widely and >>> cheaply travestied and willfully misunderstood. The work of scientists >>> consists to some degree of trying, over and over, to prove themselves >>> wrong. A hypothesis is valid only if it has been exposed to repeated >>> attempts at falsification, and once it has it wears the deceptively humble >>> name of theory. [. . .] scientific knowledge is always in a state of >>> incompletion, and sometimes in a condition of outright error" (171). >>> >>> >>> According to Scott critical thinking in art criticism is in some ways >>> more difficult than it is in science. >>> >>> >>> Critical thinking in science is difficult enough, but in art >>> criticism "How do you begin to translate an experience or an object into >>> words, and, simultaneously, to make an argument, render a verdict, take a >>> stand?" (173). >>> >>> >>> The post-modern critic in any field has any number major challenges when >>> it comes to argumentation. >>> >>> >>> "Given all the momentous and unprecedented transformations convulsing >>> the globe--the rise of the Internet and the collapse of the public >>> attention span; the spread of social media and the polarization of >>> political life, the decline of everything and the triumph of everything >>> else--what does the future of argument look like?" (220) >>> >>> >>> So, substituting 'thought' for 'text' and 'thinking' for 'writing' in >>> the following: >>> >>> >>> "The sheer quantity of text in the world threatens to erode the value of >>> particular texts, to undermine the authority and integrity of writing as an >>> enterprise." (251). >>> >>> yields something like: >>> >>> "The sheer quantity of though in the world threatens to erode the value >>> of particular thoughts, to undermine the authority and integrity of >>> thinking as an enterprise." >>> >>> >>> As in science, critical thinking in art criticism begins with selection >>> an object to observe. >>> >>> [T]he "foundational act of criticism. . . is the selection of an object, >>> the willed decision to look." (255) "Anything can be judged, analyzed, >>> investigated, made into a vessel of feeling, meaning, narrative, moral >>> significance, beauity, and so on. But the question is whether the thing in >>> question can bear the scrutiny." (266). >>> >>> Which leads to another similarity between art criticism and science: >>> that they are dialogic and social, not private. >>> . >>> >>> [T]he essence of criticism is conversation--a passionate, rational >>> argument about a shared experience . . . There's no such thing as private >>> or personal criticism. It has to be a public act, something you're invited >>> to do when something is submitted [for your consideration]." (258) [T[he >>> work of criticism, properly understood, is endless. (268) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ----------------------------- 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 . >> > ----------------------------- 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 . > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
