BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list.
Names matter only if they have a different meaning.
Conceptualism/nominalism is not a red herring but an analysis that is
removed from objective reality and rests only in the concept; ie, it
is a pure Interpretant/ future Sign removed from its connection with
the Dynamic Object. That's why Peirce's idealism is not 'idealism' but
'objective idealism'.
You outline two research areas.
1] Using the Peircean texts as the objective reality. Answering such
questions as "What terms did Peirce use and what did they mean for
him". This is a very valid area of research and is found in all
research of all philosophers - from Aristotle, Plato, on to Kant,
Hegel and so on.
Then, you outline another research area:
2] You take the objective world as the reality and ask questions,
such as: eg - What conceptual framework best matches the current
data'... But such a research area has nothing to do with Peirce. It
is a basic research area and found in any and all areas that are
quite oblivious of Peirce.
Both these areas of research are very valid. But - You haven't
included a third research area:
3] Using two objective realities: the objective world and the
conceptual framework of Peirce. This area uses the conceptual
framework of Peirce and sees how it applies to current objective data
- and helps to explain that data. This is, I feel, a legitimate area..
The terms that some people in these various fields use [societal
analysis, biology, economics, AI, etc] may not have been the same
terms as those used by Peirce but the concepts are similar. And the
depth and breadth of Peirce's analysis can, I feel, help enormously
to analyze what is going on in these external worlds. In some cases,
the researchers are familiar with Peirce and do use many of his
specific terms - or - use their own or the ones most common in their
disciplines. But - the conceptual framework of Peirce is used and is,
in itself, powerful in its pragmatic functionality.
Edwina
On Sat 13/06/20 10:38 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, Jon A., List:
Names do matter, and the alleged risk of conceptualism/nominalism is
a red herring. When the kinds of questions being investigated are
"What terms did Peirce use and what did they mean for him?" or "What
was Peirce's conceptual framework?" or "How did Peirce analyze the
universe?" then we must study his writings as the reality, or at
least as the only available means of accessing the reality. When the
kinds of questions being investigated are "What terms are commonly
used now and what do they mean?" or "What conceptual framework best
matches the current data?" or "How should we analyze the universe
today?" then we must study the objective world as the reality. The
answers to the first set of questions need not constrain the answers
to the second, but they can certainly inform them, as long as we
recognize and acknowledge the differences rather than conflating
them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:47 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon,list
Yes, I do think you are right to make such a differentiation. Names
don't matter...
But I think that any 'corpus literalism' whether early or late, runs
the risk of moving into conceptualism/nominalism, using the text as
the 'reality' rather than the objective world about which he wrote -
as the reality.
And as you say - the revolutions in thought - which I agree with you
were already active - were an integral part of Peirce's full corpus,
and his theories, in my view, fit well into these movements, which
include quantum theory, complex dynamics, molecular biology, and
societal and economic complex dynamics etc.
Edwina
On Sat 13/06/20 9:04 AM , Jon Awbrey [email protected] [4] sent:
Edwina, Robert, Peirce List ...
I think we have to distinguish “late corpus literalism” — I'll
let that go till I find a better name for it — from “full corpus
reading of Peirce's technical works placing them in the context of
mathematical developments, indeed revolutions, already proceeding
full tilt when he joined the fray, to which he added many more shots
heard 'round the world, as fortune would have it all but forgotten in
the years of reactionary nominalism that followed in the aftermath, as
it were” — I'll let that go until I find a better name for it.
Regards,
Jon
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
