John, list,
Would you please finally tell us 1. what exactly you mean by a "harmonized
synthesis" and 2. why you so strenuously object to it (whatever you mean by
it, which is not at all clear, certainly not to me)?
Also, 3. who is attempting such a thing (noting that the expression and
concept is yours and not at all obvious).
Finally, 4., please offer some quotations (cherry picked as you please)
which reflect someone here attempting this apparently grand "harmonized
synthesis"--*whether or not* it is desirable (which as vaguely as it's been
presented--being not yet defined by you--is, again, not at all a clear
concept). I certainly can't get a handle on exactly what you are so opposed
to.
You clearly see this alleged *harmonized synthesis* as highly
objectionable, while it ought be clear that some--including me--do not
agree that it is: at least if what you mean by that phrase ("harmonized
synthesis") is anything at all like what I've suggested could very well be
represented by a monograph, such as Richard Kenneth Atkins' *Peirce's
Phenomenology*.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you would begin a new thread
"discussing Peirce's
own writings about how to do research," as you wrote. Or, perhaps, with
your change of the subject line you've already meant to have begun such a
discussion? It certainly is a most worthy topic for inquiry and discussion
here.
In any case, I believe that if we are to fruitfully discuss this matter in
consideration of "Peirce's own writings about how to do research," that it
would be best not to mix other substantive topics with that topic, one
which seems rich and complex enough in itself. After some tentative and, no
doubt, fallible conclusions are reached as a result of that discussion,
perhaps, we might consider applying it to specific inquiries here and
elsewhere.
Best,
Gary
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:33 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/18/2019 3:34 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
> > An off-list email I received today from a Peirce forum member
> > remarked: "The list is supposed to be talking about Peirce rather
> > than talking about supposed ground rules for talking about Peirce."
> > I completely agree.
>
> Yes. That's a good idea. In fact, we can do both by discussing
> Peirce's own writings about how to do research. I made a slight
> addition to the subject line.
>
> For example, Peirce emphasized the need for critical analysis
> of our reasoning processes and for criticism of the criticism.
> Note his comments about self criticism and reasoning machines:
>
> > In genuine reasoning, we are not wedded to our method. We
> > deliberately approve it, but we stand ever ready and disposed to
> > reexamine it and so improve upon it, and to criticise our criticism
> > of it, without cessation. Thus the utility of the word "reasoning"
> > lies in its helping us to discriminate between self-critical and
> > uncritical formations of representations. If a machine works
> > according to a fixed principle involved in the plan of it, it may be
> > a useful aid in reasoning; but unless it is so contrived that, were
> > there any defect in it, it would improve itself in that respect, then,
> > although it could correctly work out every possible conclusion from
> > premises, the machine itself would afford no assurance that its
> > conclusions would be correct. Such assurance could only come from
> > our critical examination of it. Consequently, it would not be,
> > strictly speaking, a reasoning-machine...
> >
> > Self-criticism can never be perfectly thorough for the last act of
> > criticism is always itself open to criticism. But as long as we
> > remain disposed to self-criticism and to further inquiry, we have in
> > this disposition an assurance that if the truth of any question can
> > ever be got at, we shall eventually get at it. (R 831, 1900)
>
> For methods of reasoning, see CP Volume 7, Book II on Scientific
> Method (CP 7.49 - 361). That is too much to cover, but many
> excerpts are quite relevant to the issues we have been discussing.
>
> We should also consider relevant passages about Peirce from the
> many books and articles that have been published. For example,
> Matthew E. Moore, "Is Synechism Necessary?, 2012:
> > Peirce has left us, not any kind of final word, but a work in
> > progress, one eminently worth carrying on, in the spirit of the
> > one who started it. Which is to say that we must be as resolutely
> > critical, and as ruthless in paring away what does not work, as
> > Peirce was at his best.
>
> In this passage, MEM suggests using Peirce's writings as a resource,
> but without attempting anything like a harmonized synthesis.
>
> On the evidence for God and immortality, note the Letter CSP to WJ,
> CP 8.259, 7 March 1904:
> > I also want to say that after all pragmatism solves no real problem.
> > It only shows that supposed problems are not real problems. But when
> > one comes to such questions as immortality, the nature of the connection
> > of mind and matter (further than that mind acts on matter not like a
> > cause but like a law) we are left completely in the dark. The effect
> > of pragmatism is simply to open our minds to receiving any evidence,
> > not to furnish evidence.
>
> This suggests that no proof is possible. The best we can do is
> to open our minds and discover experience that may convince
> ourselves, but we can't "furnish evidence" to anyone else.
>
> There is, of course, much more relevant material in Peirce's
> own writings and the many excellent books and articles that
> have been published about his work.
>
> 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 .
