John, List: JFS: Every interpretation by anybody is always dependent on the context, which includes (1) their own background and education, (2) what they have read of Peirce's other writings and how they interpreted them, (3) Peirce's own understanding of the issues and his intentions in writing the MS being considered.on the dates he wrote it and revised it.
No one is suggesting otherwise. That is why, as I said before, members of the community of scholars inductively evaluate each interpretative hypothesis by testing it against not only the text of interest, but also other relevant texts, especially those written by the same author. Properly understanding the thought of Peirce, or anyone else from the past who produced such voluminous writings, takes hard work. We cannot just fixate on a favorite passage or two and ignore everything else if we are sincerely interested in ascertaining what *his *views were. JFS: ... nobody's context is sufficiently similar to Peirce's that they can make any claims that their interpretation is what Peirce intended for the purpose of that reader. I reject this assertion, which would preclude reaching a scholarly consensus about what Peirce or any other past writer professed to believe by putting it in writing. The fact that there are interpretative difficulties and genuine disagreements does not entail that *every *alleged "reading" is *equally *valid. JFS: As Peirce himself said, mathematics (which includes mathematical logic) is the only subject in which anyone who is familiar with that version of math is qualified to make definitive interpretations and corrections. "For any claims about what Peirce believed, please give exact quotations." JFS: On anything written in a natural language, nobody can claim "a high degree of confidence" for other readers who have a similar level of education. This statement is self-refuting since it is written in natural language. If it were true, then nobody would be able to claim "a high degree of confidence" about what it means, let alone evaluate it as true. Again, the claim that *all *natural language is hopelessly vague and ambiguous is patently absurd, and Peirce effectively rejects it by advocating his carefully considered ethics of terminology (CP 2.219-226, EP 2:263-266, 1903), stating therein that "it is wrong to say that a good language is *important *to good thought, merely; for it is of the essence of it." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:57 PM sowa @bestweb.net <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon AS, Edwina, List, > > Did you read the first 20 slides of http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf ? > You may ignore my words if you wish, but please read the examples by the > people I quoted. As they emphasize, context is essential for understanding > anything and everything in natural languages. My comments in this note and > the previous notes depend critically on the issues in those slides. And > please pay careful attention to the term 'mic > > JFS: Nobody on planet earth is qualified to say that he or she knows > exactly what Peirce meant. > > JAS: Nobody is claiming to know *exactly *what Peirce meant, but we can > certainly discern *approximately *what Peirce meant, often to a very high > level of confidence, by carefully studying his voluminous writings. > Otherwise, indeed, "why would anyone bother to read Peirce at all?" > > Every interpretation by anybody is always dependent on the context, which > includes (1) their own background and education, (2) what they have read of > Peirce's other writings and how they interpreted them, (3) Peirce's own > understanding of the issues and his intentions in writing the MS being > considered.on the dates he wrote it and revised it. > > Everyone who subscribes to P-List has found his writings valuable for > their purposes, but nobody's context is sufficiently similar to Peirce's > that they can make any claims that their interpretation is what Peirce > intended for the purpose of that reader As Peirce himself said, > mathematics (which includes mathematical logic) is the only subject in > which anyone who is familiar with that version of math is qualified to make > definitive interpretations and corrections. > > ET: The question remains: Is there a 'Final Interpretant' of a text > > If it's stated in mathematics, yes. Otherwise, nobody except the > original author is qualified to make that judgment. > > ET: We cannot, ourselves, proclaim that our readings are 'the Final' one. > Only the 'community-of-scholars', over time, can do that, if at all. > > The community is better qualified to make a good interpretation, but none > of them can be final. Just look at the history of scholarship about any > historical document -- ranging from the Bible (pick your preferred text) to > the US Constitution, ro any text by any philosopher, theologian or legal > scholar of any date. > > Mathematics is the only subject on which qualified readers can make > definitive pronouncements. On anything written in a natural language, > nobody can claim "a high degree of confidence" for other readers who have a > similar level of education. > > 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
