Clark, I think you're right about the confusion that sometimes leads to miscommunication. Yes, we should focus on argument - but problems can arise especially when we think that Peirce is right on some point, because then there may be two arguments involved: one about whether some proposition or other is actually asserted by Peirce, and another about whether that proposition is true in a broader universe of discourse. And sometimes there's a third argument at work, about whether Peirce's linguistic expression of his point is an optimal statement of that point, in some context or other. But that gets to be like peeling an onion. No wonder we weep. J
It's usually clear enough from the context which type or argument is intended, but not always, so we should clarify that where necessary. gary f. From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@libertypages.com] Sent: 28-Jul-14 11:07 AM Sorry I've not had time to contribute much the past weeks. A few thoughts below. On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: We could say that PPs are miners of Peirce because in his work they find realizations that deserve to be replicated in the philosophical community, in many other human communities, and ultimately in the Earth community. So while the PS is after the Whole Truth about Peirce, the PP is mining Peirce for functional components of the Whole Truth (about life, the universe and everything, if we may use this language). I think this is an excellent and insightful analysis. I also think that confusion between the aims and assertions of the PS and PP leads to a bit of miscommunication on the list. I regularly notice (and am guilty of it myself) people replying to claims with some piece of Peircean orthodoxy as if that answers things. Yet Peirce of course changed his views over time and there's no reason to assume Peirce is correct on particular points. Now I tend to think Peirce is correct more often than perhaps some, but we should remember to focus on argument and not merely orthodoxy. While it really falls under your PS category I'd add a corollary that many people are interested in expanding Peirce to areas he didn't focus on, while still largely maintaining a commitment to Peirce's views. I think I've done that as I've attempted to put Peirce, Heidegger, and other continental phenomenologists like Levinas in a kind of virtual conversation.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
