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
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.
|
and otherwise, gradually replaces the spontaneous energy that
sustains them.
Gene Halton
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
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.comwrote:
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
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
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
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 overview of Peirce's
realism. I really enjoyed
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
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
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
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
michael...@comcast.netwrote:
11 matches
Mail list logo
