John, List, JFS: When people make statements on Peirce-L, they usually have a good reason for making them. If one happens to disagree with them, it's far better (more fruitful and more likely to lead to a deeper understanding) to ask a question than to contradict what they said.
I agree with the three quotations in your reply to my note. But I want to emphasize the issues in my note. My entire concern in this exchange and as regards the recent discussions in parallel threads is that, given all the recent good ideas on improving List discussions, can we sincerely 'practice what we preach'? Best, Gary R “Let everything happen to you Beauty and terror Just keep going No feeling is final” ― Rainer Maria Rilke *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:19 PM sowa @bestweb.net <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Gary R, > > When people make statements on Peirce-L, they usually have a good reason > for making them. If one happens to disagree with them, it's far better > (more fruitful and more likely to lead to a deeper understanding) to ask a > question than to contradict what they said. > > I agree with the three quotations in your reply to my note. But I want to > emphasize the issues in my note. See below for a copy of those > quotations followed by a copy of my note. > > John > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > "Men seem to themselves to be guided by reason. There is little doubt that > this is largely illusory . . . because their reasonings are prominent in > their consciousness, and are attended to, while their instincts [and > emotions] they are hardly aware of. . . . — Charles S. Peirce > > "To think is easy. To act is difficult. To act as one thinks is the most > difficult.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > > “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is > that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” — > Richard Feynman > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:50 AM sowa @bestweb.net <s...@bestweb.net> wrote > > I agree that those suggestions are helpful: > >> >> GR: [Margaretha's] ideas and suggestive metaphors about how List >> discussion might be improved -- along with the suggestions by John Sowa and >> Gary Furhman which Jon Alan Schmidt just quoted -- if taken up in the >> spirit of collegiality, could help improve communication here considerably. >> >> I would like to add a few more suggestions. >> >> The first one is that the method of asking questions, as in Plato's >> dialogues with Socrates as the discussion leader, is one of the best ways >> to promote fruitful discussions. People may be offended by a direct >> contradiction of what they just said, but nobody is offended by an honest >> question. (A loaded question can be offensive. e.g. "Have you stopped >> beating your wife?") >> >> The so-called "Socratic method" can also be annoying when pushed to an >> extreme. But an honest question is more likely to generate a fruitful >> discussion. >> >> For Peirce, it's especially important to recognize that he had a very >> fertile imagination, and his ideas were constantly growing .and developing >> over the years. His comment "symbols grow" indicates that the same words >> on different occasions may have very different meanings and implications: >> >> 1903: For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that >> is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but >> the meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off >> old ones. (CP 2.222). >> >> The only statements by Peirce that remain constant are the ones in >> mathematics and formal logic A statement in math or logic has a fixed >> meaning forever. But Peirce's comments about then may change, as we have >> noted in various discussions. >> >> The following point is significant: >> >> CSP: The little that I have contributed to pragmatism (or, for that >> matter, to any other department of philosophy), has been entirely the >> fruit of this outgrowth from formal logic, and is worth much more than >> the small sum total of the rest of my work, as time will show. >> (CP 5.469, R318, 1907) >> >> The categories of 1-ness, 2-ness, and 3-ness are based on logic, and they >> have been central to his thought throughout. But his applications of those >> ideas continued to grow. Even in his late writings of 1913, his ideas >> continued to grow, and he had hopes of writing more. Nobody on planet >> earth can be certain that any ideas outside of mathematics and logic would >> remain unchanged. >> >> The recent discussions of comments by De Tienne and Atkins about >> phaneroscopy were interesting, but nobody can be certain that their >> opinions about the "science egg" are what Peirce intended. On these >> issues, good questions are more valuable than definitive answers. >> >> In summary, a good way to improve the level of discourse on Peirce-L is >> to ask more questions and to avoid making definitive pronouncements about >> what Peirce meant. De Tienne read as much or more than anybody else, and >> even he doesn't know. We can state our own opinions, but nobody can claim >> that their opinions are what Peirce intended. >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 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.
