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 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