John, List: JFS: For these reasons, what triggered this thread is not what Jon wrote, but what Gary R wrote ... But when he made a blanket statement about my competence,that was out of bounds.
Again, where did Gary R. make any such "blanket statement"? Please provide a quotation, preferably including a link to the specific post in the archive, or issue a retraction and an apology. Failure to do so will constitute admission that this is a baseless allegation. JFS: There are some areas for which Peirce depended very heavily on math and logic. ... For topics that touch on those areas, someone who is not attentive to the mathematical issues may be misled. When I read comments that ignore those issues, I say so. Whether Peirce depended heavily on math and logic for a particular area is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Which topics touch on those areas is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Whether someone is adequately attentive to mathematical issues is a matter of interpretation and opinion. No one has jurisdiction to make authoritative pronouncements about such matters. Where there is disagreement, make a better argument. JFS: Re principle of charity: That is necessary for interpreting philosophers who are not able to speak for themselves -- either because they are dead or merely because they are not present in the discussion. The Wikipedia article <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity> makes no reference whatsoever to whether the person being interpreted is able to speak for himself/herself. In fact, it repeatedly refers to a "speaker," rather than an author, implying that the principle of charity *directly *applies when he/she *is *speaking for himself/herself. Luther's formulation of "putting the best construction on everything" likewise makes no such distinction, since it is primarily intended for everyday situations. Joe Ransdell's plea for "generosity of attitude" certainly pertains to *all *of us in *every *on-List exchange. JFS: But I also know that Gary is not a mathemtician,and he has a tendency to downplay the influence of mathematics on Peirce's philosophy. In my own experience, Gary R. does not "downplay the influence of mathematics on Peirce's philosophy," but rather seeks to balance it with other valid considerations. For example, in our extensive off-List discussions about Peirce's philosophy of time, he (and also Gary F.) very helpfully emphasized its phenomenological aspects, which served as a necessary check on my own much more mathematical and logical bent. We all have a natural tendency to interpret others (including Peirce) through our peculiar lenses that have been shaped by different collateral experience and different habits of interpretation. Generosity of attitude includes recognizing the validity of others' perspectives, ideally resulting in *shared* inquiry that takes them into account rather than remaining narrowly oriented. To be clear, I am directing this exhortation at myself as much as anyone else. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:10 PM John F. Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Michael, Edwina, Robert M, and Gary R, > > Peirce's range of interests, talents, and research was so broad that there > is no single best method for studying and interpreting his writings. For > different aspects of his work, some methods are better than others. But > even for those areas where one method may be dominant, other methods may > also be appropriate for certain aspects. > > For these reasons, what triggered this thread is not what Jon wrote, but > what Gary R wrote. As moderator, he's supposed to moderate. He has the > right to state his opinions about any issue., But when he made a blanket > statement about my competence, that was out of bounds. > > There are some areas for which Peirce depended very heavily on math and > logic. The four volumes of NEM are prime examples. But there are also > many topics in CP, EP, and W for which mathematics is essential for > understanding the nuances. For topics that touch on those areas, someone > who is not attentive to the mathematical issues may be misled. When I read > comments that ignore those issues, I say so. > > Re principle of charity: That is necessary for interpreting philosophers > who are not able to speak for themselves -- either because they are dead or > merely because they are not present in the discussion. But if they are > present, they can speak for themselves about any misunderstanding. > > I've known Gary R for years, and we've always been quite friendly. But I > also know that Gary is not a mathemtician, and he has a tendency to > downplay the influence of mathematics on Peirce's philosophy. I would not > object to some criticism of an issue in which I emphasize the importance > of mathematics and formal logic. I would then accept the burden of proof > to show that math is indeed important for that particular topic. I've done > that in some cases, and I'll continue to do so. > > 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 .
