Stephen, When Peirce used a word like “real,” he adhered to his “Ethics of Terminology.” What you are espousing here sounds more like the ethics of Humpty Dumpty: http://gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm#gl0ry .
Gary f. From: Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> Sent: 17-Mar-19 12:25 “Whatever withstands us is real.” Of course, because reality is all. But the implication here must be that there is something that is unreal. I know the blunt truth argument. But I see Second as being Ethics and ethical matters of what is good, matters of conscience, seem distinctly lacking in discussions of philosophy once you get past Rawls or back to virtues. I reject the notion of a triad needing to contain resistance other than to values -- whether to accept them or not. The reason I have a fixed system of Reality Ethics Aesthetics is because the latter two categories are buried in Peirce through seen as normative. This triad can be applied to choices that have real world consciousness. It can issue in measurable acts and expressions. It can be taught to the person on the street. It is in short an advance of philosophy from the academy to the universe and I think Peirce imagined that heaven smiles on such an evolution. Did he achieve it? Implicitly yes. Explicitly clearly not.
----------------------------- 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 .
