John, List: JFS: Maintain a sharp distinction between an author's "ipsissima verba" and any commentary about them.
Again, I believe that I have consistently done this. JFS: If an author did not state something explicitly, any claims about the text are opinions of the commentator. Of course, and I have never suggested otherwise. JFS: Opinions are never acceptable in a court of law or in a scholarly edition. The List is neither a court of law nor a scholarly edition. It is an informal branch of the secondary literature, which consists *entirely *of opinions. JFS: As for substance, I have been begging you to drop the phrase "harmonize and synthesize". That is still about methodology, not substance; and in any case, at this point you are the only one who keeps bringing it up. JFS: My concerns: CP 6.24 is quite clear as Peirce stated it; there is no need for a paraphrase to make it clearer. But this paraphrase distorts CP 6.24 in several ways: I have already addressed your concerns, and I continue to reject the charge of distortion. We have made our respective cases for our positions, and others can decide for themselves who has the better argument. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:52 PM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > I agree that my comments were about methods of reasoning rather than > specific issues about Lane's book. So I changed the subject line. > > JAS > > As for this thread, it is supposed to be about Peirce's views on > > realism and idealism as explored by Lane in his recent book, not > > our different purposes and respective approaches for studying and > > discussing Peirce's views on those topics (and others). > > I'm not talking about your preferences or mine. I'm talking about > the long-established conventions for scholarship: Maintain a sharp > distinction between an author's "ipsissima verba" and any commentary > about them. If an author did not state something explicitly, any > claims about the text are opinions of the commentator. Opinions > are never acceptable in a court of law or in a scholarly edition. > > > JFS: The term 'objective idealism' could characterize a huge family > > of theories from antiquity to the present. > > > > JAS: Sure, but we are only discussing the particular theory that > > Peirce called by that name in 1891. > > My complaint was not about the topic, but about the method > of reasoning. The following example illustrates the issues: > > JAS > > The whole point of CP 6.24-25 (1891) is that once dualism is > > dismissed in favor of monism, there are only three options--mind > > and matter are independent (neutralism), matter is primordial such > > that mind depends on matter (materialism), or mind is primordial > > such that matter depends on mind (idealism). Peirce unambiguously > > endorsed the last alternative and rejected the others, and as far > > as I know, he never abandoned that view. > > My concerns: CP 6.24 is quite clear as Peirce stated it; there is > no need for a paraphrase to make it clearer. But this paraphrase > distorts CP 6.24 in several ways: > > 1. The phrase "the whole point" implies that there is no other > useful information in CP 6.24-25. But the last sentence of > CP 6.25 makes an important point about Peirce's methodology: > "But before this can be accepted it must show itself capable > of explaining the tridimensionality of space, the laws of > motion, and the general characteristics of the universe, with > mathematical clearness and precision; for no less should be > demanded of every philosophy." > > 2. The phrase "there are only three options" is an unduly precise > grouping of the huge number of issues that have been debated > since antiquity. It's true that Peirce only mentioned three, > but he added the phrase "it seems" to each of the first two. > That sounds far more tentative than an unambiguous endorsement. > > 3. He calls the third option "the only intelligible theory" but adds > the qualification mentioned in point #1: an explanation of 3-D > space, laws of motion, and everything with "mathematical clearness > and precision". That would require a huge amount of work. > > 4. Since Peirce never accomplished the tasks in point #1, it would be > premature to claim that he "unambiguously endorsed" that option. > Einstein made more progress on those issues than Peirce did, but > there are still many unanswered questions today. > > 5. In the statement "matter is effete mind" (CP 6.25), the words > 'effete' and 'mind' are extremely vague, and the definitions > of 'matter' have changed enormously since the 19th century, > and new developments are continuing to make revisions. Those > words are so vague that "it's easy to be certain". > > 6. I also wrote that point #5 is so vague that any of the following > terms would be just as certain as Peirce's 'objective idealism': > Theos = Logos = Tao = Dharma = God of Spinoza = pantheism. > > JAS > > In any case, what I characterized as "unambiguous" was not Peirce's > > statement itself, but his endorsement of objective idealism... > > The best possible proof that Peirce endorsed objective idealism is > an exact quotation of CP 6.24-25. No paraphrase by anybody is > acceptable in a court of law or in a scholarly analysis. > > JAS > > but how about dealing with the substance of my posts, rather than > > continually nitpicking at my methodology and choice of words? > > Peirce's devoted his life's work to nitpicking. That is the essence > of logic and semeiotic: Developing and justifying precise methods > for analyzing language, thought, and reasoning down to the smallest, > most precisely defined and justified steps (AKA nits). > > As for substance, I have been begging you to drop the phrase > "harmonize and synthesize". The only things you are harmonizing > are your own opinions. No refereed publication would ever accept > anybody's claim of "harmonizing" anybody else's writings. > > JAS > > Why did you append a lengthy piece by Einstein? > > Three reasons: (1) Einstein was addressing similar issues, and he > started from the same physics that Peirce knew; (2) he adopted the > strategy that Peirce stated in CP 6.25; and (3) he made far more > progress in "explaining the tridimensionality of space, the laws > of motion, and the general characteristics of the universe, with > mathematical clearness and precision." > > In fact, Peirce's foundation in logic, mathematics, philosophy, > science, and religion was closer to Whitehead than Einstein. It's > no accident that Charles Hartshorne, who was the primary editor of > CP vol. 6, adopted a version of Whitehead's process theism. > > See "Peirce and religion: Between two forms of religious belief" > by Hartshorne (1995), Ch. 20 of _Peirce and Contemporary Thought_, > ed. by K. L. Ketner. Also note "The response to Hartshorne" by > V. G. Potter in Ch. 21: > > > Hartshorne: "I shall be comparing three doctrines, Peirce's > > theism, classical theism, and my neoclassical or somewhat revised > > Whiteheadian theism." > > > > Potter: "I agree almost completely with Hartshorne's assessment of > > Peirce's strengths and weaknesses. I thoroughly agree that Peirce > > might indeed be characterized as between two worlds -- the world of > > classical theism (from which he moved away) and the world of process > > theism (at which he had not yet arrived)." > > For a more detailed comparison of Peirce's objective idealism with > Whitehead's process philosophy, see "The problem of novelty according > to C.S. Peirce and A.N. Whitehead" by Maria Regina Brioschi: > > https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/264520/367902/phd_unimi_R09823.pdf > > In summary, Hawthorne and Potter agreed on the "strengths and > weaknesses" of Peirce's claims about objective idealism. Since > the issues are still debatable, Peirce's weaker claims are more > acceptable than any "unambiguous" version. > > JAS > > Why did your article, "Peirce's Tutorial on Existential Graphs," > > include so much commentary--most of the total content, in fact > > -- rather than merely providing a bare transcription of his > > original text and diagrams? > > That's a good question. In fact, that article is an extension of > my comments on Michel Balat's version of R 514, which he transcribed > at Houghton Library. In my original version, all the text by Peirce, > including quotations from his other writings, is in black. And my > commentary is in red. For that version, with some revisions over > the years, see http://jfsowa.com/peirce/ms514.htm > > For the published version, the journal did not support "rubrics" > (commentary in red). See http://jfsowa.com/pubs/egtut.pdf > > In this version, I made a clear distinction between the quotations > by Peirce, and I never made any claims that my examples and > commentary were intended by Peirce or that I was "harmonizing" > anything Peirce wrote. > > But what I did do is something that William James told Peirce > not to do (for his 1898 lectures in RLT): use mathematical > (algebraic) notation. That may be the reason why Peirce did not > show the mapping between his EGs and his algebra of 1885. > > That was probably a good strategy for the audience of the lectures. > But it was a disaster for anybody who had learned and used the > algebraic notation. Christine Ladd Franklin, for example, was > one of Peirce's best students, but she never understood the EGs. > > But just look at the tables on pp. 5 to 9 of egtut.pdf. They show > how to translate each of the EGs to Peirce-Peano algebra. Those > tables are essential for modern (21st c) readers. > > Except for some explicit quotations, my presentation of what Peirce > wrote ends at Fig. 16 on page 13. It's quite possible that he may > have some unpublished remarks related to what I wrote. If so, I'd > love to see them. But I don't make any claims about his intentions. > > Section 6 (pp. 22 to 27) covers advanced topics in modern logic. > It shows how Peirce's EGs and rules of inference can clarify and > simplify developments 20 or more years after he died. > > 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 .
