>
>
>
> From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Catherine Legg
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:42 PM
> To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Book Review: "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism&quo
A Facebook acquaintance posted this on my wall ...
Bakhtin Meets Pocahontas --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GITVPh7GVSE
Cheers,
Jon
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
o
ion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf
Of Catherine Legg
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 9:42 PM
To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Book Review: "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism"
Tom that is a great quote in this context, thank you!
Gene your passionat
Peircers,
Yet another attack of synchronicity -- I just now happened to be working on the
markup of
some old work and I ran across this bit where I was trying to puzzle out a
sensible picture
of how the normative science fit together within a pragmatic perspective on
their objects.
| Question
Tom that is a great quote in this context, thank you!
Gene your passionate warning against a “Pyrrhic victory of eviscerated,
abstract intelligence in the service of ideals” is important I think. It
would seem that Peirce did criticize himself along these lines at one point
where he compared hi
Terry, Gene, Jon, List,
Methinks that you are quite correct, Terry, about reasonableness in
Peirce being centered on the social principle, and not just for
science. Critical commonsense ought play a significant role in all our
endeavors in Peirce's view.
And Gene, while I enjoy the passion of you
Methinks that the Peirce's 'reasonableness' is based on what he calls the
'social principle' and that it is the reasonableness of evolutionary love.
The ideal of the community is love.
Terry
On Mar 25, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Eugene Halton wrote:
Forster: "On [Peirce's] view, human beings are not c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibnzKeA6yxI
On Mar 25, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Eugene Halton wrote:
> Forster: "On [Peirce's] view, human beings are not cogs in a vast cosmic
> mechanism, but rather are free, creative agents capable of transforming the
> world though the active realization of intell
Forster: "On [Peirce's] view, human beings are not cogs in a vast cosmic
mechanism, but rather are free, creative agents capable of transforming the
world though the active realization of intelligent ideals. The ultimate fate of
the world is indeterminate and there is no guarantee that the force
Not sure if this got sent. If so, sorry for the duplication.
Flying blind as usual, I think admirable for Peirce means what it would
mean to most. An action or actions that achieve a positive purpose either
for an individual or in relationships. Peirce's modifier of reasonableness
might be an evol
Cathy,
I'll have to wait for this discussion to develop further and/or the talk to
get posted, but I thought this quote from Peirce might be pertinent.
The artist introduces a fiction; but it is not an arbitrary one; it
> exhibits affinities to which the mind accords a certain approval in
> prono
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Gary Richmond wrote:
> I want to conclude this note with a passage near the end of the book
> which I very much liked and have been reflecting on since. Forster
> writes:
>
> On [Peirce's] view, human beings are not cogs in a vast cosmic
> mechanism, but rather are
Here is a somewhat corrected version of my reply to Terry.
Best, S
I have little place for ethics in such a system as I have. I see ethics as
secondary to the willed application of values to the making of decisions.
To me the question is what are the ontological values. My pragmatic answer
came
Stephen – Your points are well taken. Might we say that we 'know' the eternal
good by our very nature without being able to articulate it or convince others
'rationally'.
I am a little unclear what you mean by 'ethics' here. I guess I must side with
Nietzsche and Royce (and Rorty) here and the
It seems to me that if there is a conflict between nominalism and
realism/idealism which plays out in history that it is important to delve
deeper. Peirce made spiritual or transcendent or musement matters subject
to experiment - human progress had to be real. Where I think I disagree is
in not ven
A couple of comments on this passage from Forster and relating to S. Rose's
response:
1. The 'plan' by which the universal intelligence works is not a 'fixed' or
time(-space)-invariant 'plan'; (cf. likewise in Plato's Timaeus).
There is no way to reason forward to 'deduce' a better world without
presents, his criticisms. The book itself is probably a
> > worthwhile read, perhaps worthy of further review here.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
> > Behalf Of Catherine Legg
> > Sent: Tuesday,
orthwhile read, perhaps worthy of further review here.
>
>
>
> From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Catherine Legg
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:43 PM
> To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Book Review: &
Catherine Legg
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:43 PM
To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Subject: Re: [peirce-l] Book Review: "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism"
Michael I just read the book review from Nathan Houser you shared - it is
lucidly written over 6 pages and gives a commanding o
Michael I just read the book review from Nathan Houser you shared - it is
lucidly written over 6 pages and gives a commanding overview of Peirce's
realism. I really enjoyed reading it, thanks for posting it.
Cathy
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Michael DeLaurentis
wrote:
> If there has already
20 matches
Mail list logo
