John, List: JFS: If you prefer, I won't call you a student. I'll call you a "loose thinker".
So much for not being condescending; and now insulting, as well. Any Peircean would recognize that particular appellation as such. JFS: An analysis of the passages you quoted confirms the fact that you did not understand the points that Peirce was making. Why should anyone *presuppose *that your analysis is somehow *intrinsically *more accurate than mine? Again, people can read Peirce's words and what we both say about them for themselves, then draw their own conclusions. JFS: Peirce's writings deserve that depth of analysis. The fact that you happen to disagree with my analysis does not entail that it lacks such depth. I have carefully made my case and responded to your objections, sticking to substance rather than sidetracking into personal disparagement. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:21 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/26/2019 9:49 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > I am not /your /student, and we are /both /students of Peirce. > > Yes. But you have a lot to learn about recognizing the precision > in Peirce's writings. If you prefer, I won't call you a student. > I'll call you a "loose thinker". > > > I am not willing to accept someone else's dogmatic pronouncements > > as if they were beyond questioning. > > I never make dogmatic statements. I recognize that everything, > including my own writing is fallible. And I always appreciate > corrections or additional points I may have missed. > > But before you reject what I've written or what Hartshorne and > Weiss have written, you must address the issues at the same or > deeper level of precision. > > > I consistently quote Peirce's own writings to back it up--as much > > as or more than anyone else on the List these days, > > A quotation is not a proof. Until you do the analysis at the level > that Peirce was writing, all you did was cut and paste a bunch of > words. An analysis of the passages you quoted confirms the fact > that you did not understand the points that Peirce was making. > > > sometimes that process produces surprises, forcing us to reconsider > > views that we previously considered to be settled. > > Yes indeed. But the issues aren't settled by juxtaposing passages. > All of us must do the much harder work of (1) analyzing those passages > at the level that Peirce was writing, (2) considering the unstated > background knowledge (i.e., collateral experience) that Peirce assumed > his readers would have, and (3) using relevant knowledge developed > during the past century. > > In conclusion, I'll repeat what I wrote in my reply to Stephen: > > > Many people, including me, have found that in most publications, > > even by prominent Peirce scholars, the quotations by Peirce are > > more precise than the discussions about them. > > > > The explanations by Peirce scholars are certainly helpful, because > > they highlight points that we may have missed on first reading. > > But when we reread Peirce's originals, we marvel at how clearly, > > succinctly, and precisely they make their point. > > Peirce's writings deserve that depth of analysis. > > John >
----------------------------- 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 .
