Ben, List: BU: I don't know what my source was. I hate to think that I simply transmuted somebody's suggestion into Peirce's name choice.
GR: I might have been your source. At the time you wrote that Wikipedia article of was thinking of Peirce's use and spelling of esthetics, that he had a scientific meaning in ming, viz., the pursuit of the "summum bonum" of science which he had tentatively determined to be "the reasonable in itself." I believe there is a Peirce source for that as opposed tt aesthetics as the "*Study of the good, the admirable*" but I can locate it the moment. Best, Gary R (from Brussels with little juice left in my computer. On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 4:13 PM Ben Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > I wrote many years ago in the Wikipedia article on Peirce's classification > of the sciences > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce), in > the table of sciences: > > i. Esthetics. *(Study of the good, the admirable. Peirce reserved the > spelling "aesthetics" for the study of artistic beauty.)* > > I don't know what my source was. I hate to think that I simply transmuted > somebody's suggestion into Peirce's name choice. > > Best, Ben > On 9/12/2024 2:14 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: > > 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]> > <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 at 4:27 PM > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> <[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 > Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> > <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / > twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 1:20 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[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]> > <[email protected]>> > Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:22 PM > To: Jeffrey Brian Downard > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>> > Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected]>>; Peirce-L > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > <[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]> > <[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. > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
