Matt, List ~ No, I don't think I did misunderstand what second-best means. In fact, economists (which I am) have a theory of second-best which I studied in grad school about 100 years ago, and it sounds very much like what you are describing. So let's turn the question around: Did Plato know about evolution or Pragmatic logic when telling us to pursue second-best objectives?
I cannot respond specifically to your question about the rationality of suicide in the cases you identified, due to my lack of information on the subject. Also, you are focused on small (extinct) groups, whereas I discussed humanity. However, if I kill myself 5-minutes before someone else is going to kill me, that does not define me as suicidal. Edwina did not say the extinction of her own species would be inconsequential. So I don't think your examples are pertinent to my argument. I made three simple points, which were not addressed by your comment: 1- Logic (that survives) has a Pragmatic purpose. 2- The human ability to manipulate logic evolved for the specific purpose of ensuring the survival of humans. 3- Therefore, when humans use logic to construct social institutions, survival of the species is the appropriate (first) objective. Far more difficult is the task of translating the objective of survival into social policy. Yet, if we forget about survival and begin with some other objective (e.g., democracy), then vast numbers of people will take exception to it. That's the current situation in much of the world today: People believe their own idiosyncratic (second-best) objectives are paramount, and kill/threaten/enslave/disrespect/marginalize others who disagree. It is difficult to believe that represents the pinnacle of human potential. Regards, Tom Wyrick > On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:22 AM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Tom, > > You misunderstood what "second-best" means. In Plato (to the best of my > knowledge) it means that in lieu of the ever elusive best, we should take the > second best. This reading of Plato makes him out to be like today's cancer > doctors who criticize the fact that way too much money is being spent to find > the silver bullet cure (the ideal, the best) rather than the second best way > of funding research for palliative care (second-best). Margolis says that > what is commonly called "best", in regard to a moral ideal, is a fantasy, (or > that commonly cited criteria for how we can know what is best are > pie-in-the-sky ideals, e.g., perfect coherence, chasing after pie-in-the-sky > moral precepts,) but there's still a way, it just requires taking a step or > two back in your rationale and adjusting your faulty premise to a better one. > Here, second-best is actually best. It helps to understand this to know that > Margolis is also a constructivist for matters determined by culture, like > morality. If morals are actually constructed (by humans), then chasing after > some non-human given (God given) ideal, that most people consider best, is a > fools errand. > > As for survival of the species being a ground for logic... Were samurais who > committed seppuku (harakiri) illogical? What about the suicidal Jews at > Masada? Was Edwina illogical when she said to you, on July 22, "I'm not a > member of the set of people who weep over extinctions. Something else > emerges, just as you point out, with that E=MC2. Exactly."? A strong case > could be made for the rationality of all of these. > > 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 . 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 > > ----------------------------- > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
