e as well, no?
>
>gary f.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Phyllis Chiasson [mailto:ath...@olympus.net]
>Sent: 2-May-14 7:48 AM
>To: peirce-l@list iupui. edu
>Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest view
>+ overarching view incl met
er to produce belief, an argument,
even though it "relies upon definitional clarity", surely must involve some
appeal to experience as well, no?
gary f.
-Original Message-
From: Phyllis Chiasson [mailto:ath...@olympus.net]
Sent: 2-May-14 7:48 AM
To: peirce-l@list iupu
rom: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
Sent: 2-May-14 9:21 PM
To: Phyllis Chiasson
Cc: peirce-l@list iupui. edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest
view + overarching view incl methodeutic)
Thanks Phyllis - I think part of CSPs desire was
ver...@gmail.com
To: ath...@olympus.net
CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest
view + overarching view incl methodeutic
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" t
Thanks Phyllis - I think part of CSPs desire was to establish the
scholastic elements of his thinking. But he may also have had a genuine
desire to have his philosophy distinguished from pragmatism. If that is the
case there might be some consideration of whether we should assume and
honor that wis
May 02, 2014 10:16 AM
To: P List
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest
view + overarching view incl methodeutic)
Peirce-Listers:
Peirce claimed that there was a proof of pragmatism in the 1903 “Lectures on
Pragmatism.” For a detailed account of that p
Good point, Stephen.
Listers, Does anyone know whether Peirce referred to the name of this proof
differently after he coined the word pragmaticism in his 1905 essay, What
Pragmatism Is? Was he consistent in using pragmaticism rather than pragmatism
after that time?
Phyllis
"Stephen C. Rose"
ay 2014 12:17:54 -0400
>From: stever...@gmail.com
>To: ath...@olympus.net
>CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
>Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest
>view + overarching view incl methodeutic)
>
>I wonder, if we are talking proof, wh
that produces monsters, but the fury thereof.
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 12:17:54 -0400
From: stever...@gmail.com
To: ath...@olympus.net
CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.2 Proof of Pragmatism & Semiotic (modest
view + overarching view incl methodeutic)
I wonder,
I wonder, if we are talking proof, whether we should not apply it to
pragmaticism rather than pragmatism. CSP would not have coined the term had
he not wished to underline a distinction. And I suspect it deserves to be
used posthumously as the name he gave to his evolved philosophy.
*@stephencrose
Mara & listers,
Mara noted in an earlier post that she did not see a proof of pragmatism in
Chapter 7. I hope she and others will pipe in on this. I especially wonder
whether others consider the proving abduction necessary to proving pragmatism
(or that proving one proves the other).
Kees writ
11 matches
Mail list logo
