: September 28, 2014 6:05 AM
To: Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,
Stephen:
You simply state:
Beauty and truth are teleological terms
I wonder why.
Cheers
Jerry
On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Beauty and truth
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural
Propositions,
Stephen:
You simply state:
Beauty and truth are teleological terms
I wonder why.
Cheers
Jerry
On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Beauty and truth are teleological terms
Stefan,
Excuse me for asking a silly question:
You wrote . . . are unable to destinct their own dreams . . .
Can you use distinct as a verb ? Or did you mean distinguish ?
With all the best.
Sung
Ben, Gary, R., Gary F.,
i've got to start from the end of your post. You speak of the
, hypothetically, as it were.
John
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: September 28, 2014 6:05 AM
To: Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,
Stephen:
You simply state:
Beauty and truth
Stephen:
You simply state:
Beauty and truth are teleological terms
I wonder why.
Cheers
Jerry
On Sep 26, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Beauty and truth are teleological terms and valuable as objectives that
continuity heads toward and fallibility clouds.
@stephencrose
On
Ben, Garys, list,
seems i took some things down the wrong pipe (see my post to Gary).
There is not much in what you say that I'd disagree with. But there is
still the truth-problem, but maybe this is just a problem of labeling.
For me truth has no little errorbars, but i'm apodictic here
Stefan
Would it not be an act aiming toward truth and beauty to stop using the
word pragmatism entirely when seeking to articulate CP's thought and
instead say pragmaticism even if in doing so one has to explain why?
*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:52
Stephen,
in germany we have a saying I am not more papal than the pope. There
are times of loose thinking/speaking and there are times of strict
thinking/speaking. When the setting is right people will understand you
even if use the wrong words.
Best
Stefan
Am 26.09.14 13:24, schrieb
Stefan, all,
I think that there's much to be said for your suggestion of our jettisoning
'truth' and replacing it with 'knowledge', at least in science. There are,
I believe, strong hints of this notion in Peirce as well, for example, here:
When our logic shall have paid its *devoirs* to
Beauty and truth are teleological terms and valuable as objectives that
continuity heads toward and fallibility clouds.
*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Stefan, all,
I think that there's much to be
Ben, Gary, R., Gary F.,
i've got to start from the end of your post. You speak of the society
rewarding diciplines and this sheds a light on your idea of sociology
in this discussion. Your sociology consists of conscious actors who
reward, strive for power, wealth or status. This is more a
Stefan, Gary F., list,
I was indeed addressing the snakebite example, just not mentioning it by
name. If two traditions, two people, two of anything, arrive at
incompatible conclusions about snakebites, then at most one of their
conclusions is true. That's what incompatible conclusions means.
: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,
Gary F., Ben, List,
yes, it is an extremist position. Ludwik Fleck in some of his texts about the
Denkkollektive (thought collectives) comes close to this point. But his
microbiological bench research maybe prevented him to fall prey to such
solipcism
compelled) to polarize the issue. And Ben was responding in kind
(appropriately, I think).
gary f.
From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de]
Sent: 21-Sep-14 5:41 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6912] Re: Natural Propositions,
Dear Ben, Gary R
Dear Stan, lists,
The problem here is a bit as when Collier thought all the world was in the
head - for where is that head? in the world? in another head?
The same holds here: the world will be constructed by each [tradition] via
different models - now, WHERE are those traditions? Seems to be
Ben, lists,
A most excellent post, and one of the strongest arguments against
constructivist epistemology that I've read, having the added virtue of
being succinct.
Best,
Gary
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University
Dear Ben, Gary R., Gary F., List
wich social constructivists with some reputation do hold the position
that the objects or findings of inquiry are unreal and mere figments?
Schütz, Berger Luckmann, Piaget, von Foerster, Latour, Bloor or
Knorr-Cetina? Foucault, Mannheim or Fleck? I wonder
17 matches
Mail list logo