BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Ben, list
Thank you for your post but I don't think it is as simple as you
outline.
First, if you want to know what Peirce thought, then I think you
will have to read the works yourself and make up your own mind. Even
if you don't have access to all of Peirce's work and none of us do -
I think it is incumbent on anyone to make up their own mind. I don't
think that anyone on this list is The Peircean Gatekeeper. My view is
that one doesn't become a 'Peircean authority' by how much of Peirce
one has read but by an understanding of the agenda of Peirce's
approach. I happen to think that this approach is quite consistent
over his lifetime, despite his different commentaries and despite the
years. I think that understanding this approach is not based on how
much one has read but on an entirely separate issue - you either 'get
it' or you don't. And we can debate what 'it' is.
I myself, after all, disagree with much - a very great deal - of
JAS's interpretations of Peirce - and reserve the right to read
Peirce and make up my own mind. I've frequently argued with JAS but
find him very defensive about his views - and insisting only on
'constructive criticism' - a term which is in itself meaningless. My
point is that all we can do is offer our analyses to each other - but
- defending them as 'beyond critique' is not part of an academic
debate. After a while, one simply has to 'agree to disagree'. And
leave it at that. But I think some people here, and I include JAS,
have trouble doing that...and trouble 'allowing' others to have
different interpretations of Peirce.
After all - I've been attacked, and I include JAS in this group, as
not merely misunderstanding Peirce, but as offering 'unscientific,
esoteric outlines' of his pragmatic functionality, of offering
'non-Peircean' views which aren't In The Text and told that I should
openly declare my non-Peircean approach. {Note: I don't keep archives
- which I think can be a bit obsessive - and am paraphrasing].
So- it isn't as simple or one-sided as you outline.
Edwina
On Wed 19/06/19 8:32 AM , Ben Novak [email protected] sent:
Dear John, Gary, et al.:
I have been following on this listserv for many years, for a few
years in the late '90s and early '00s, and then since about 2009.Over
all that time, I have found what JAS has been doing to be the most
valuable. I understand that as his efforts to present Peirce's
thought, from a careful knowledge of more of his (Peirce's) works
than most have access to.
I want to know what Peirce thought, and that is why I most value
what Jon is doing. John Sowa may be right that Peirce valued a
constantly growing thought process. Fine, and I recommend John show
that to us.
But I do not appreciate the personal attacks on JAS. Let him do his
thing. If one disagrees, one does not have to make it personal,
simply present what you think is correct. One does not have to slam
JAS in order to do so.
I would very much like JAS to continue to present his understanding
of what Peirce thought as JAS goes through more MSS. and tackles more
subjects in it. Please, for Goodness' sake, let him do it. Indeed,
encourage him to do it. If anyone has a different approach, please
present it without having to attack someone.
Advice to JAS: Don't take the attacks personally. If the attacker
raises an issue, present what you think about the issue--without
referring to the attacker. Just do your thing, because you are doing
it well.
Advice to John Sowa: If you think Peirce's thinking did not end at
his death, fine; take us to new heights. But one does not have to do
that over anyone else's dead body.
Sincerely,
Ben Novak
5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142Telephone: (814)
808-5702Mobile: (814) 424-8501
"All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the
arts themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last
bar of Mozart will have ceased to be—though possibly a colored
canvas and a sheet of notes may remain—because the last eye and
the last ear accessible to their message will have gone." Oswald
Spengler
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:02 AM Gary Richmond wrote:
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 ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:33 PM John F Sowa 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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
