Hi Jon, List, The spelling of aesthetics with an a is the British variant. The spelling without the a is the American variant. The spelling without the a is now less common, even in the US. I disagree with the conclusions you draw about the significance of the difference in spelling. Having said that, I agree that esthetics (or aesthetics, as I spell it), as the first of the normative sciences, is a narrower kind of inquiry than what is typical for most philosophers who work in the field.
The same is true for the second normative science of ethics. Peirce notes this fact by calling the second science ant-ethics. It might be appropriate to call the first science ant-aesthetics, as I tend to do when talking with myself and close friends about what Peirce is doing in that branch of the normative sciences. Setting points of spelling to the side, I try to read Peirce in light of what he was reading, both early and late in his career. This is the approach Richard Smyth adopts in Reading Peirce Reading, and it is an approach I try to model in my work. One of the first philosophical essays to really engage Peirce’s attention as a budding student of philosophy was Schiller’s Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man. I interpret the conceptions of play and musement in the N.A. in terms of conceptions Schiller develops in those letters. Schiller explicitly says his work draws on Kant’s second, and especially his third Critique. Smyth suggests Peirce was deeply influenced by all three of Kant’s Critique’s, but his understanding of the judgments that are involved in abductive reasoning are especially influenced by Kant’s transcendental analysis of the types of pure reflective judgments that are found, in a paradigmatic form, in aesthetic evaluations. Hope that helps to clarify some of the differences in our respective approaches to interpreting what Peirce says about aesthetics, Jeff From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 4:27 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretation of Peirce on Aesthetics and the Divine Jeff, List: In Peirce's architectonic classification, the first normative science is not aesthetics, but esthetics. This is not merely a one-letter difference in spelling--instead of being the traditional "branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of beauty and the nature of taste" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics), "Its problem is to determine by analysis what it is that one ought deliberately to admire per se in itself regardless of what it may lead to and regardless of its bearings upon human conduct" (CP 5.36, EP 2:142, 1903). Moreover, "the ideal must be a habit of feeling which has grown up under the influence of a course of self-criticisms and of hetero-criticisms; and the theory of the deliberate formation of such habits of feeling is what ought to be meant by esthetics" (CP 1.574, EP 2:377-378, 1906). In short, Peirce affirms that we do have habits of feeling, which are normed by the science of esthetics; and of course, we also have habits of action that are normed by ethics and habits of thought that are normed by logic as semeiotic. Peirce indeed mentions "aesthetic contemplation" in "A Neglected Argument," but only as an example of what he has in mind by "Pure Play"; the others are "distant castle-building (whether in Spain or within one's own moral training)" and "considering some wonder in one of the Universes, or some connection between two of the three, with speculation concerning its cause" (CP 6.458, EP 2:436, 1908). Still, only the last of these qualifies as "Musement" and thus "will in time flower into the N.A." (ibid). Accordingly, I do not understand the N.A. as an aesthetic argument, but as a cosmological argument--the reality of God as Ens necessarium arises as a plausible explanatory hypothesis for the three Universes of Experience. As the text says later, the Muser does not find it to be "an attractive fancy" only "for its beauty" and "for its supplying an ideal of life," but also (and especially) "for its thoroughly satisfactory explanation of his whole threefold environment" (CP 6.465, EP 2:439). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 1:20 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello Edwina, Time is short on my end. I am trying to use the term "aesthetics" in a manner consistent with the tradition in philosophy, starting with Baumgarten, who coined the term, up through Kant and through Peirce's writings. I don't feel a need to add another definition. We have plenty of dictionaries to consult if we are looking for a nominal definition of the term. If you think something I've said doesn't fit with the way the term is used in this tradition, let me know. --Jeff ________________________________ From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:22 PM To: Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Peirce-L <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Interpretation of Peirce on Aesthetics and the Divine Jeff, List Thanks for your post.. First -as with all discussions, terms need definitions, and I would ask you to define what you mean by ‘aesthetics’. I find the idea of God attractive [ if only], but completely implausible. I do find, however, the concept of Mind as outlined in Peirce’s definitions, both attractive and plausible. As for my understanding of the normative sciences [ the study of what ought to be], …aesthetics, from what I read in Peirce, is focused around ‘qualitative’ ideals of feeling [1.191, 5.129] and thus, very difficult to come to any conclusions. We can certainly see this in the rejection of ideals in much of current Woke ideology. However, I think that the realities of Secondness [ethics] and Thirdness [logic] will force the development of a normative ideal within the aesthetic realm. Do we have ‘habits’ of feeling? To my understanding, habits develop within the realm of Thirdness, and Feeling remains in the realm of Firstness - without habits. Can the two realms of Secondness and Thirdness control Firstness? As for the monotheistic religions, since my analysis of them is that these religious types emerge only within very large populations, then, the ideology in them is formed to deal with the societal requirements of very large populations; namely - commonality of identity, rules for interactions with others, common beliefs requirement etc… Edwina On Sep 9, 2024, at 12:29 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello Jon S, Edwina, Gary R, Gary F, and List, Thank you, Jon, for addressing my questions about interpreting Peirce. It seems we are largely in agreement on several of these issues. If that is the case, your final remark should not significantly impact your interpretation of Peirce. You mentioned: “Peirce affirms natural theology but not Biblical theology, general revelation but not special revelation, and theism in general but not any creed in particular. I always try to keep this firmly in mind when reading, contemplating, and discussing his writings since this is a major point of difference between my personal views and his.” Since these differences largely pertain to personal religious and theological views, they should not significantly affect your interpretation of Peirce’s arguments in the context of scientific logic and metaphysics, nor the extent to which you find those arguments reasonable. One place where the concept of God appears in Peirce’s normative sciences is in aesthetics, where he examines ideals that might shape our habits of feeling. In my reading of “A Neglected Argument,” I see several strands of the argument as primarily aesthetic. By comparison, Kant’s three Critiques explore whether the Idea of God should serve as a regulative ideal in theoretical inquiry, practical pursuits, and aesthetic reflection. Richard Smyth, in Reading Peirce Reading, notes that Peirce agrees with Emerson’s approach in “The Poet,” asserting that the aesthetic dimensions of experience hold a certain priority over practical and theoretical aspects for philosophical reflection. I concur with Smyth and find Emerson’s and Peirce’s views persuasive. They argue that aesthetic questions about ideals worth admiring for their own sake take precedence over questions about ethically good or logically sound ideals. For those who find the idea of God unattractive or implausible, a pertinent question is: “What ideal do you find more attractive, purely for its aesthetic value, in the context of aesthetics as a normative science?” In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche takes this question up and suggests an alternative ideal. I would be interested in hearing Edwina’s interpretation of Peirce’s view on aesthetics, as well as your own perspectives. Do such reflections lead us naturally to consider the hypothesis of God as a regulative ideal necessary for shaping our habits of feeling, such as wonder, love, gratitude, and forgiveness? Or, is Nietzsche on to something when he suggests the old monotheistic conceptions of God found in the Judaic, Christian and Islamic traditions fall short insofar as the lead us to feel pity for ourselves in light of our long record of human shortcomings and nausea in response to the modern technological and social worlds we have inherited from prior generations and have fashioned for ourselves? Looking forward to your thoughts. Best regards, Jeff
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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.
