On 10/6/15 3:22 AM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Were samurais who committed seppuku (harakiri) illogical? What about
the suicidal Jews at Masada?
Those two questions were in response to your statement here: "For the
individual (person), the first purpose of logic is to survive and thrive
within the laws of mankind."
Moral rationality is based on values. There is no conceptual necessity
to subscribe to the idea that there is one standard of moral values that
applies to all people for all time, or, for that matter, for all people
at any given time. (I could have taken the word 'moral' out and, I could
argue, it would still be true.)
Matt
On 10/6/15 12:52 AM, Ozzie wrote:
Matt, List ~
Margolis explains, "We are to construct a state ... in spite of the
fact that no one knows how to detect the would-be guiding Forms."
If I were in charge of constructing the society of monkeys (or any
other species), I would pay greatest attention to ensuring the
survival of the species. If Plato or Margolis don't take the
survival principle as a starting point for humans, I can understand
their search for direction.
There is no such thing as a second-best objective at which our logic
should aim. If one does not know what is best, one doesn't have any
way of judging what is second-best, either. Also, second-best is not
so good if we are all dead. A value judgment is required.
Pragmatism requires a purpose, or there is no logic.
The ability to manipulate logic is our (humankind's) evolved
superpower. Other species wait for accidents, death and time to
adapt to challenges in optimum ways, while we can (potentially) do it
overnight. The evolved purpose of human logic is to survive and
thrive. The interpretants in that logic do not favor the interests
of one person, one party or one nation over another. The challenges
(and opportunities) are human and nonhuman, earthborn and from space.
For the individual (person), the first purpose of logic is to survive
and thrive within the laws of mankind. A congruence between logic
serving humankind as well as serving individual humans occurs when
"efficient" laws and institutional incentives generate decisions that
are both personally and socially rewarding. Free thought, free
communication, free association and free trade are generally believed
to contribute to those ends, though with limitations.
... Anyway, that's how I see it.
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
On Oct 5, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Matt Faunce '<mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote:
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 <mailto: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 .
--
Matt
--
Matt
-----------------------------
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 .
