Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
Dear List: Then to keep things clear and tidy, keep things next to each other: But the beautiful, also, and that which is in itself desirable are in the same column; and the first in any class is always best, or analogous to the best. "That a *final cause* may exist among unchangeable entities is shown by the distinction of its meanings. For the final cause is (a) some being for whose good an action is done, and (b) *something at which the action aims*; and of these the latter exists among unchangeable entities though the former does not. The *final cause, then, produces motion as being loved*, but all other things move by being moved. Now if something is moved it is capable of being otherwise than as it is. ~Aristotle, Metaphysics Book XII Now what is a “final” cause? It is merely a tendency to produce some determinate kind of effect having some relation to the *destiny* of things. But is not such a tendency abundantly manifest in the whole of life-process of plants? ~Peirce, *An Essay toward Improving our Reasoning in Security and Uberty*, *EP 2:464* So with all scientific research. Different minds may set out with the most antagonistic views, but the progress of investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves to one and the same conclusion. This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a foreordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great hope is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is *fated to be ultimately agreed to* by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. ~*How to Make Our Ideas Clear* *Hth,* *Jerry Rhee* On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:35 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > > On Jan 14, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > But I did find this previous comment on Houser on Forster on Peirce while > I was looking for something else, and it reflects my sense that Peirceans > have more trouble controlling that slippery slide toward what I've called > “essentialism” or “ontologism” than they do checking nominalistic drift. > > > I find that if we keep front and center Peirce’s notion of habit that this > is less of a problem. That said though Peirce also treats structures, > essences and similar phenomena through a lens of possibility. That does > open up the danger than in adopting a modal realism one is sneaking a near > Platonism back in through the window. > > A similar risk occurs with Peirce’s notion of teleological causation. At > times he is anxious to distinguish his sense from the type of necessity > that perhaps is closer to Aristotle’s use or among the scholastics. He > adopts a kind of Darwinian approach that seeks to avoid this causation. Yet > at other times he’ll speak of what is necessary and not just highly > probable - perhaps wrapped up in his notion of continuity - which again > constantly keeps the threat of Platonism an ever present one. > > Put an other way, I think you are right but that this difficulty is part > and parcel of Peirce’s own writings that reflect this tension. > > > - > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
> On Jan 14, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > But I did find this previous comment on Houser on Forster on Peirce while > I was looking for something else, and it reflects my sense that Peirceans > have more trouble controlling that slippery slide toward what I've called > “essentialism” or “ontologism” than they do checking nominalistic drift. I find that if we keep front and center Peirce’s notion of habit that this is less of a problem. That said though Peirce also treats structures, essences and similar phenomena through a lens of possibility. That does open up the danger than in adopting a modal realism one is sneaking a near Platonism back in through the window. A similar risk occurs with Peirce’s notion of teleological causation. At times he is anxious to distinguish his sense from the type of necessity that perhaps is closer to Aristotle’s use or among the scholastics. He adopts a kind of Darwinian approach that seeks to avoid this causation. Yet at other times he’ll speak of what is necessary and not just highly probable - perhaps wrapped up in his notion of continuity - which again constantly keeps the threat of Platonism an ever present one. Put an other way, I think you are right but that this difficulty is part and parcel of Peirce’s own writings that reflect this tension. - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
“One important key to Dr. Carus’s opinions is the recognition of the fact that, like many other philosophers, he is a nominalist tinctured with realistic opinions.” ~Peirce “I look upon Mr. Peirce as an extreme nominalist, or, if he prefers it, as a nominal realist soaked with nominalistic opinions. He professes to be a realist, but he rescinds the foundation of realism.” ~Carus "The famous dispute between Nominalists and Realists would never have been heard of, if, instead of transferring the Platonic Ideas into a crude Latin phraseology, the spirit of Plato had been truly understood and appreciated." ~Jowett, c.f., Lady Welby, *Meaning and Metaphor* "Rhetoric’s chief rival would now be sophistry. Socrates says as much in his account of rhetoric; but when Socrates says it again to Callicles, Callicles expresses nothing but loathing for sophistry. Callicles believes the chief rival to rhetoric is philosophy." ~Seth Benardete, *The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus * Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Jon- I fully agree. I think the search for 'this' and 'only this' meaning > of a term slips into that essentialism of 'ontological absolutes'. > > Edwina > - Original Message - From: "Jon Awbrey" > To: "Arisbe List" ; "Inquiry List" ; > "Peirce List" > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 10:15 AM > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and > Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between > > > > Peircers, >> >> We've been through the nominalism versus realism question so many times >> that >> I can't think of anything fresh to say about it. When the use of words >> like >> Universal, General, Continuous vs. Particular, Singular, Individual comes >> up >> I find it more useful to focus on the pragmatics of language use relative >> to >> the context of interpretation, frame of reference, sign relational space, >> or >> universe of discourse at hand than to go chasing after ontological >> absolutes. >> >> But I did find this previous comment on Houser on Forster on Peirce while >> I was looking for something else, and it reflects my sense that Peirceans >> have more trouble controlling that slippery slide toward what I've called >> “essentialism” or “ontologism” than they do checking nominalistic drift. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-ess >> entialism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must >> -navigate-its-middle-way-between/ >> >> On 9/20/2012 6:10 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >> >>> Peirce Listers, >>> >>> Earlier this summer, Ayşe Mermutlu posted a notice of Nathan Houser's >>> review >>> of Paul Forster's "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism" on the Facebook >>> page >>> of the Charles S. Peirce Society and a brief discussion ensued. >>> >>> 1. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/ >>> 2. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/ >>> 3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/ >>> 147723215363679/ >>> >>> My initial comment was this -- >>> >>> JA: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis >>> that Pragmatism must navigate its middle way between. >>> >>> On being asked what I meant by "essentialism", >>> I glossed it as follows -- >>> >>> JA: This is idea that all phenomena are explained by absolute >>> (monadic, non-relative, or ontological) essences inhering >>> in objects, as opposed to any notion that some phenomena >>> can be explained only in terms of relations among objects. >>> For instance, in semiotics, essentialism leads to the idea >>> that signhood is a permanent essence inhering in something, >>> as a matter of its ontology, as opposed to a role that >>> something performs within the setting of a sign relation. >>> >>> On further interrogation, I added this -- >>> >>> JA: If nominalism is the doctrine that generals are only names and >>> only individuals have objective existence, then essentialism is >>> the doctrine that all names (logical terms) refer to properties >>> of individuals. So a term like “father” is only a relative term >>> relative to the perspective of a non-omniscient being who cannot >>> see what individuals are destined to be fathers and what not. >>> >>> I think it's fair to say that most of the Peirce crew is handy enough >>> when it comes to steering clear of nominalism's rock-monster, but not >>> so well-drilled in navigating safely by essentialism's whirly places. >>> At any rate, I keep seeing a drift in that direction pulling the good >>> ship Pragmatism into the eddy of a most likely futile sea battle, and >>> I thought it incumbent on the duty of my watch to report what I see. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >> -- >> >> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
Jon- I fully agree. I think the search for 'this' and 'only this' meaning of a term slips into that essentialism of 'ontological absolutes'. Edwina - Original Message - From: "Jon Awbrey" To: "Arisbe List" ; "Inquiry List" ; "Peirce List" Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 10:15 AM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between Peircers, We've been through the nominalism versus realism question so many times that I can't think of anything fresh to say about it. When the use of words like Universal, General, Continuous vs. Particular, Singular, Individual comes up I find it more useful to focus on the pragmatics of language use relative to the context of interpretation, frame of reference, sign relational space, or universe of discourse at hand than to go chasing after ontological absolutes. But I did find this previous comment on Houser on Forster on Peirce while I was looking for something else, and it reflects my sense that Peirceans have more trouble controlling that slippery slide toward what I've called “essentialism” or “ontologism” than they do checking nominalistic drift. Regards, Jon https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-essentialism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must-navigate-its-middle-way-between/ On 9/20/2012 6:10 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: Peirce Listers, Earlier this summer, Ayşe Mermutlu posted a notice of Nathan Houser's review of Paul Forster's "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism" on the Facebook page of the Charles S. Peirce Society and a brief discussion ensued. 1. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/ 2. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/ 3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/147723215363679/ My initial comment was this -- JA: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism must navigate its middle way between. On being asked what I meant by "essentialism", I glossed it as follows -- JA: This is idea that all phenomena are explained by absolute (monadic, non-relative, or ontological) essences inhering in objects, as opposed to any notion that some phenomena can be explained only in terms of relations among objects. For instance, in semiotics, essentialism leads to the idea that signhood is a permanent essence inhering in something, as a matter of its ontology, as opposed to a role that something performs within the setting of a sign relation. On further interrogation, I added this -- JA: If nominalism is the doctrine that generals are only names and only individuals have objective existence, then essentialism is the doctrine that all names (logical terms) refer to properties of individuals. So a term like “father” is only a relative term relative to the perspective of a non-omniscient being who cannot see what individuals are destined to be fathers and what not. I think it's fair to say that most of the Peirce crew is handy enough when it comes to steering clear of nominalism's rock-monster, but not so well-drilled in navigating safely by essentialism's whirly places. At any rate, I keep seeing a drift in that direction pulling the good ship Pragmatism into the eddy of a most likely futile sea battle, and I thought it incumbent on the duty of my watch to report what I see. Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
Peircers, We've been through the nominalism versus realism question so many times that I can't think of anything fresh to say about it. When the use of words like Universal, General, Continuous vs. Particular, Singular, Individual comes up I find it more useful to focus on the pragmatics of language use relative to the context of interpretation, frame of reference, sign relational space, or universe of discourse at hand than to go chasing after ontological absolutes. But I did find this previous comment on Houser on Forster on Peirce while I was looking for something else, and it reflects my sense that Peirceans have more trouble controlling that slippery slide toward what I've called “essentialism” or “ontologism” than they do checking nominalistic drift. Regards, Jon https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-essentialism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must-navigate-its-middle-way-between/ On 9/20/2012 6:10 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: Peirce Listers, Earlier this summer, Ayşe Mermutlu posted a notice of Nathan Houser's review of Paul Forster's "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism" on the Facebook page of the Charles S. Peirce Society and a brief discussion ensued. 1. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/ 2. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/ 3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/147723215363679/ My initial comment was this -- JA: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism must navigate its middle way between. On being asked what I meant by "essentialism", I glossed it as follows -- JA: This is idea that all phenomena are explained by absolute (monadic, non-relative, or ontological) essences inhering in objects, as opposed to any notion that some phenomena can be explained only in terms of relations among objects. For instance, in semiotics, essentialism leads to the idea that signhood is a permanent essence inhering in something, as a matter of its ontology, as opposed to a role that something performs within the setting of a sign relation. On further interrogation, I added this -- JA: If nominalism is the doctrine that generals are only names and only individuals have objective existence, then essentialism is the doctrine that all names (logical terms) refer to properties of individuals. So a term like “father” is only a relative term relative to the perspective of a non-omniscient being who cannot see what individuals are destined to be fathers and what not. I think it's fair to say that most of the Peirce crew is handy enough when it comes to steering clear of nominalism's rock-monster, but not so well-drilled in navigating safely by essentialism's whirly places. At any rate, I keep seeing a drift in that direction pulling the good ship Pragmatism into the eddy of a most likely futile sea battle, and I thought it incumbent on the duty of my watch to report what I see. Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache - 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
