I'm in the middle of re-reading a lecture by Joseph Margolis titled A
Second-Best Morality. I've been wanting to introduce some of his
concepts to Peirce-L because they both challenge and expand Peirce's
philosophy. Among the several things I've read by Margolis, A
Second-Best Morality seems to be the easiest introduction to this
otherwise very difficult-to-read philosopher.
The term /Second-Best/ comes from Plato's "second-best state." Since
there is no discoverable first principles to guide us in what sort of
state to form. Margolis explains,
"We are to construct a state, it seems––we must live within one
political order or another––in spite of the fact that no one knows
how to detect the would-be guiding Forms."
I have many thoughts on how concepts from this paper relate to the
subject we're talking about. Unfortunately I haven't organized them in a
presentable way yet, nonetheless, at the risk of foregoing presenting
some important premises that Margolis does present, here's a quote that
is of paramount importance to pragmatism. Speaking of
"We must bear in mind that we ourselves are surely the creatures of
our own cultural history; what we can and dare judge to be morally
and politically reasonable must fit the living options of our actual
world. Even if we supposed an "ideal" answer might serve as a guide
at least, we need to remember that our visions cannot be more than
projections from local habits of thought or neighboring possibilities."
The question that this lecture poses is 'how much of reality does this
principle cover?' And it makes the case that it should be much more than
morals and judgments of art. If abduction of moral principles (and the
value of art) is not the guessing of what is true in a Cartesian-Realist
way but true in a 'second-best' way, then is this also the case of other
truths? Understand that Margolis brings to light premises that give this
question a lot of force. (By Cartesian-Realist, I mean that truth is out
there, outside of us, waiting to be discovered, and we have the means to
discover it. I mean to challenge the first clause.)
How far did Peirce move, say, compared with Descartes, or Kant, toward
this idea of second-best truth? Margolis somewhere, on video, say
something to the extent that this is where the future of pragmatism is.
Here is the link to a page where you can download the PDF of the written
lecture (26 pages).
http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/12411
Matt
On 10/5/15 3:19 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
(as I wrote) ". . . every attempt be made to keep comments relevant to
Peirce and pragmatism, and that discussants be as sensitive and
respectful as possible to the thoughts and feelings of others on the
topic as these may be very different from their own. . ."
Best,
Gary
-----------------------------
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 .
