John, List: JFS: But by placing normative science after phaneroscopy, he was unable to use normative principles for evaluating interpretations and relations among them.
It seems to me that this was quite intentional on Peirce's part. CSP: Philosophy has three grand divisions. The first is Phenomenology, which simply contemplates the Universal Phenomenon, and discerns its ubiquitous elements, Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, together perhaps with other series of categories. The second grand division is Normative Science, which investigates the universal and necessary laws of the relation of Phenomena to *Ends*, that is, perhaps, to Truth, Right, and Beauty. ... So then the division of Philosophy into these three grand departments, whose distinctness can be established without stopping to consider the contents of Phenomenology (that is, without asking what the true categories may be), turns out to be a division according to Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, and is thus one of the very numerous phenomena I have met with which confirm this list of categories. For Phenomenology treats of the universal Qualities of Phenomena in their immediate phenomenal character, in themselves as phenomena. It, thus, treats of Phenomena in their Firstness. Normative Science treats of the laws of the relation of phenomena to ends, that is, it treats of Phenomena in their Secondness. (CP 5.121-123, EP 2:196-197, 1903) CSP: Phenomenology ascertains and studies the kinds of elements universally present in the phenomenon; meaning by the phenomenon, whatever is present at any time to the mind in any way. Normative science distinguishes what ought to be from what ought not to be, and makes many other divisions and arrangements subservient to its primary dualistic distinction. (CP 1.186, EP 2:259, 1903) There is nothing *normative *about phenomenology/phaneroscopy. It is *not concerned* with achieving "Truth, Right, and Beauty," or with distinguishing "what ought to be from what ought not to be." Instead, it "simply contemplates the Universal Phenomenon," "treats of the universal Qualities of Phenomena in their immediate phenomenal character," and "ascertains and studies the kinds of elements universally present in the phenomenon." Moreover, contrary to Bernard Morand's claim yesterday, Peirce's inclusion of phenomenology/phaneroscopy in his classification of the sciences as the first branch of philosophy is *not *the result of treating the categories as an "a priori" or "preconceived" organizing principle. Instead, according to his own testimony, it is evident "without asking what the true categories may be ... and is thus one of the very numerous phenomena" that *confirm *the categories. JFS: Another serious limitation of the 1903 classification: The science of semeiotic, which is one of Peirce's most outstanding contributions, does not appear anywhere in his classification. I believe that is a serious absence in the classification. Please stop repeating this blatant falsehood, which I have already corrected twice before in recent posts. Peirce does not employ the *word *"semeiotic" in his 1903 classifcation, but he certainly includes *what it designates*. CSP: Normative science has three widely separated divisions: i. Esthetics; ii. Ethics; iii. Logic. ... All thought being performed by means of signs, logic may be regarded as the science of the general laws of signs. It has three branches: 1, Speculative Grammar, or the general theory of the nature and meanings of signs, whether they be icons, indices, or symbols; 2, Critic, which classifies arguments and determines the validity and degree of force of each kind; 3, Methodeutic, which studies the methods that ought to be pursued in the investigation, in the exposition, and in the application of truth. Each division depends on that which precedes it. (CP 1.191, EP 2:260, 1903). The normative science of logic, with its three branches of speculative grammar, critic, and methodeutic, is "the science of the general laws of signs," which Peirce elsewhere calls "semeiotic." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:01 AM sowa @bestweb.net <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Dear Bernard, Robert, List, > > I have more to say about the policies for Peirce list, but first I'd like > to comment on this topic. > ------------------------------ > Bernard: I think that the content and purpose of Phaneroscopy needs to > be cleared up independently of the question of classification of sciences. On > the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an unknown > thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the logic of the > categories. > > Robert: my question is: does this "a priori trichotomy derived from the > logic of the categories" fall from the sky or rather from the mathematical > repository with 1- the triadic reduction theorem of the relational > structures; 2- a Poset 3-->2-->1 which is the form of the phaneroscopic > categories incorporating their interdependence relationship; all in the > well of the truth? > > Those are important questions, and I suspect that Peirce's 1903 > classification of the sciences made it impossible for phaneroscopy to grow > beyond a science egg. By placing phaneroscopy after mathematics (which > includes formal logic), Peirce could use his logic (either algebraic or > diagrammatic) for representing monadic, dyadic, and triadic predicates. Bu > t by placing normative science after phaneroscopy, he was unable to use > normative principles for evaluating interpretations and relations among > them. > > Another serious limitation of the 1903 classification: The science of > semeiotic, which is one of Peirce's most outstanding contributions, does > not appear anywhere in his classification. I believe that is a serious > absence in the classification. One way to remedy it would be to merge > phaneroscopy with normative science. This is close to what Atkins was > suggesting in his attempt to broaden phaneroscopy. > > I mentioned this point in an earlier note, and Jon AS immediately jumped > on my remark as something that Peirce never said. That is indeed true. > But in his long note of 1913, he wrote that he had many vague and > incomplete ideas that he never wrote in his MSS. This may be one of the > puzzles he hadn't fully worked out. In that long lettter, he wrote that he > was planning o write another book. > > Nobody knows what Peirce intended to write, and nobody knows how he might > hatch that science egg. This is a very important topic for further > discussion. > > 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 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.
