To, specifically, John, JAS, Gary R, Edwina,
Please stop. Does anyone think this continued harangue is either: 1)
attracting new individuals to be interested in Peirce?; or 2) resolving
anything? I wish I knew where there was a forum, as I first encountered
years ago with this list, where I could learn and sometimes contribute
to an inspection of Peirce's fecund writings. No longer. If, based on
the evidence of these interchanges, I hear more about charity or grace
or whatever you want to call it, I will puke. Please stop this
destructive behavior.
Despite Gary R telling me offline to resign from the list, I will
continue to monitor. I am curious to see if the human animal has the
capacity to learn and grow. Evidence based on the way this list is going
does not instill optimism.
Mike
On 5/14/2020 8:59 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
John, List:
Thanks for confirming that there are no specific examples to cite of
Gary R. making the kinds of "blanket statements" of which he has been
repeatedly and falsely accused. I sincerely hope that a retraction
and an apology will be forthcoming accordingly.
JFS: Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to
arrive at an overall interpretation of [his own] thought". No
Peircean scholar or committee of scholars would attempt to do
that. If Peirce himself couldn't do that, it's the height of
hubris for anybody else to claim that they could.
This is utter nonsense. /Many /Peircean scholars have attempted to do
that, not out of hubris but out of a sincere (even humble) desire to
learn from Peirce's writings and then help others do likewise. As I
have said before, that is precisely why there is such a vast secondary
literature--including books like Kelly A. Parker's /The Continuity of
Peirce's Thought/, which was my own initial introduction to the
subject matter. Its back cover explicitly calls it "A comprehensive
and systematic reconstruction of the philosophy of Charles S.
Peirce--perhaps America's most far-ranging and original
philosopher--that reveals the unity of his complex and influential
body of thought." This is followed by two accompanying quotes.
Joseph Brent: In spite of the difficult complexity of its
subject, Kelly Parker's ambitious work is remarkably clear and
readable and is indispensable for an understanding of the
evolution of Peirce's thinking.
Nathan Houser: I know of no better introduction to Pierce.
Parker's book is the first to present Peirce's philosophy fully
and systematically following Peirce's own system. This is a
stimulating work that should engage even the most sophisticated
Peirce scholar.
These kinds of claims are not only unobjectionable, they are /routine
/in mainstream philosophical scholarship. If no one could ever say
anything /new /about Peirce, then no one would ever have much to say
/at all/ about Peirce.
JFS: For my own writings, I have *never* seen any
paraphrase--favorable or unfavorable--that I would consider accurate.
Thanks for confirming that the attribution of such a sentiment to
Peirce is nothing more than a projection of one's own feelings. Is it
reasonable to expect others to /memorize /what we have written, and
then do nothing more than repeat it back verbatim? On the contrary,
if no readers can accurately restate it in /their own/ words, then
that strikes me as strong evidence of a complete failure by the author
to communicate his/her ideas successfully.
JFS: That is human charity, not mathematical charity.
Who said anything about "mathematical charity"? Charity is charity,
regardless of the context--putting the best construction on
everything, and conscientiously exhibiting generosity of attitude.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:01 PM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net
<mailto:s...@bestweb.net>> wrote:
Jon, et al.
I just want to emphasize one point: It's extremely rare for
anybody to approve or be satisfied with anybody else's summary or
paraphrase of what they said or wrote. If it's highly favorable,
they probably won't complain. But even then, they realize that
the paraphrase is not what they themselves would have said.
JAS> The debates are rarely about there being only one "right"
interpretation of only one particular passage, but rather whether
and how we can integrate different passages to arrive at an
overall interpretation of Peirce's thought, usually stated in our
own words rather than his.
No!!! Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to
arrive at an overall interpretation of [his own] thought". No
Peircean scholar or committee of scholars would attempt to do
that. If Peirce himself couldn't do that, it's the height of
hubris for anybody else to claim that they could.
Note: I am not complaining about what you write -- provided that
you state it as your own opinion. But I strongly object to any
claim by anybody that they could do what Peirce himself could
never accomplish.
JAS> John Sowa recently claimed
<https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00118.html>
that "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to
paraphrase his thoughts," but offered no citation or quote to
support this projection of his own feelings onto Peirce.
If you want to see people cringe at a paraphrase, just watch
children cringe when their parents try to repeat what they said on
some previous occasion.
As for Peirce, I'll turn the question around. Can you find any
paraphrase that Peirce approved? Look at his reviews of
writings by William James or Ernst Schröder. Or note they way he
introduced the word 'pragmaticism'.
For more examples in ordinary language, look at any email debates
on any list or blog on any subject: Few, if any people, fully
agree with any paraphrase of what they said. Sometimes, they might
admit that the other person made a clearer or better statement on
the same topic. But an improvement is not an exact paraphrase.
For my own writings, I have *never* seen any paraphrase --
favorable or unfavorable -- that I would consider accurate. Some
of them are worse than others. But even the favorable comments are
not exact.
As for Peirce, his background and knowledge were unique. Even the
best Peircean scholars can't write a truly accurate paraphrase of
anything he wrote. I would never attempt to do that.
But every mathematician, including Peirce, recognizes that
mathematical derivations are guaranteed to absolutely precise or
completely false. If anybody derives a conclusion from some
proposition p in formal math or logic, the original authors will
accept any statement derived from p -- *provided that* the
derivation correctly follows the rules of inference for that
notation.
In mathematics, every derivation is either exactly correct or
exactly false. There is no room for charity. But a good teacher
can be charitable by being sympathetic and helpful in showing
students how to correct and avoid mistakes. That is human
charity, not mathematical charity.
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
