Edwina, List: Realism and idealism have different definitions in different philosophical contexts. Sometimes they are conceived as incompatible alternatives, such that we must choose one or the other. That was obviously not what Peirce had in mind, since he identified himself as both a realist and an idealist--specifically, a *scholastic *realist opposed to nominalism (CP 5.470, 1907) and an *objective *idealist opposed to dualism, neutralism, and materialism (CP 6.24-25, EP 1:293, 1891). He even summarized his overall synechism as a combination of logical realism, objective idealism, and tychism (CP 6.163, EP 1:333, 1892). For a definitive treatment of all this, I highly recommend Robert Lane's recent book <https://books.google.com/books/about/Peirce_on_Realism_and_Idealism.html?id=yKpCDwAAQBAJ>, *Peirce on Realism and Idealism*.
I agree that #3 below is valid; in fact, it captures better what I meant by #2. My objection only arises when someone attributes a particular terminology, conceptual framework, or analysis of the universe to Peirce that is inconsistent with his actual writings. Again, all I ask is that we recognize and acknowledge where ours are different from his. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:29 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
