Hi Helmut,
I think it’s good to look for all three things and decide after but where you start depends on your situation. You just start from where you are: ‘*There is but one state of mind from which you can ‘set out’, namely, the very state of mind in which you actually find yourself at the time you do ‘set out’—a state in which you are laden with an immense mass of cognition already formed, of which you cannot divest yourself if you would; **and who knows whether, if you could, you would not have made all knowledge impossible to yourself?*’ ~Peirce, 1905 But it’s different for a community. Where should a community start?...CP 5.189. I agree that it is good to have a better foundation to understand Peirce better but it’s complicated. There is a logic of icons, a logic of indices and a logic of symbols, and that gets confused when discussing unified, hierarchically organized systems in only an abstracted way. I agree that some ‘sophistry’ is necessary but sophistry isn’t bad in and of itself. There is good sophistry and bad sophistry. The same good sophistry can turn into bad sophistry. Also, good ideas are labeled sophistry until there is ‘evidence’ and evidence is sometimes very thin. Moreover, to rely strictly on sophistry can be dangerous: “*’Faith’, in the sense that one will adhere consistently to a given line of conduct, is highly necessary in affairs. But if it means you are not going to be alert for indications that the moment has come to change your tactics, I think it ruinous in practice*”. CP 8.251 Yes, I agree that good systems theories are useful, and a humanistic one even moreso. I think an argument can be made that there are types of systems theories that are equivalent to the Socratic common sense method because it deals with the dialectics of “what is…?” questions and they are made explicit using modern technologies. If done correctly, it will pay close attention to the ethics that follows esthetics. But the idea of a commens must also be accepted at the outset before we start. Perhaps this is what Peirce meant when he said, “*You feel, as I do, that the importance of pragmatism is not confined to philosophy. The country is at this moment in imminent danger on which I need not expatiate…But I seem to myself to be the sole depositary at present of the completely developed system, which all hangs together and cannot receive any proper presentation in fragments. * *My own view in 1877 was crude. Even when I gave my Cambridge lectures I had not really got to the bottom of it or seen the unity of the whole thing. It was not until after that that I obtained proof that logic must be founded on ethics, of which it is a higher development. Even then, I was for some time so stupid as not to see that ethics rests in the same manner on a foundation of esthetics,- by which, it is needless to say, I don’t mean mild and water and sugar. * *These three normative sciences correspond to my three categories, which in their psychological aspect, appear as Feeling, Reaction, Thought.”* ~ CP 8.251-256, Peirce Letters to William James. Hth, Jerry Rhee On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Jerry, > and do you think, it is ok, to start with sophistry, like I do, before > moving on to politics and philosophy, or is it better to include philosophy > from the start? I just thought, that in order to have a basis, it would be > good to have a valid model, or to understand the Peircean model better, and > others too, like Garys vector-model. Therefore I thought, that a lot of > sophistry is necessary. In fact I am tinkering with tables (there is a > problem with my way of making inversions, at abduction...), not only about > inferences, but also about causalities. In the end it is about systems > theory too- it is essential for politics to have a good systems theory, a > humanistic one, or an organism-istic one, I think. I think, that wars have > been started due to bad systems theories. For example, I think that it is > wrong, approvingly seeing a social system as an organism: Doing that can > lead to fascism (and so to war). On the other hand, one might say, that a > model is just a model between other models, and it would be wrong anyway, > to rely on just one model, and take it for the truth. What do you think > about that and about first focusing on sophistry? > Best, > Helmut > > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 03. Mai 2016 um 22:37 Uhr > *Von:* "Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *An:* "Helmut Raulien" <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *Cc:* frances.ke...@sympatico.ca, Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Betreff:* Re: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Is CP 5.189 A Syllogism? Can > Categorial Analysis Be Worthwhile? > > “…there is also present a nameless philosopher designated only as a > stranger from Elea. Socrates asks the stranger whether his fellows > regard the sophist, the statesman, and the philosopher as one and the same > or as two or as three. It could seem that the question regarding the > identity or nonidentity of the sophist, the statesman, and the philosopher > takes the place of the question, or is a more articulate version of the > question, What is knowledge?” ~Strauss > > > > To articulate the problem of cosmology means to answer the question of > what philosophy is or what a philosopher is…But even that stranger from > Elea did not discuss explicitly what a philosopher is. He discussed > explicitly two kinds of men which are easily mistaken for the philosopher, > the sophist and the statesman. By understanding both sophistry (in its > highest as well as in its lower meanings) and statesmanship, one will > understand what philosophy is. Philosophy strives for knowledge of the > whole. The whole is the totality of the parts. The whole eludes us, but > we know parts: we possess partial knowledge of parts. At one pole…At the > opposite pole…it is necessarily accompanied, sustained and elevated by > *eros*. It is graced by nature’s grace.” > > ~Strauss, What is Political Philosophy? > > > > One, two, three…icon, index, symbol…sophist, statesman, > philosopher…object, sign, interpretant… > > > > Hth, > > Jerry Rhee > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> Frances, list, >> Did you say, that not all signs are inferences? This I would agree with. >> Or did you also say, that inferences are not signs, but only interpretant- >> relations? Hm, may be, though I like psychical drama. But in this case, i >> think, that any inference can only be an argument, because an inference >> consists of three parts, and a term/rheme is only one part, and a >> proposition/dicent may consist of only two parts (eg.: "birds fly"). But: >> Is an argument not necessarily a syllogism, that is deduction? An argument >> being an abduction must first change or de-degenerate the abduction into a >> deduction, eg. by putting a "possibly" before the conclusion. Eg.: If the >> abduction ends with "the beans are from the bag", then this conclusion must >> be replaced by: "So possibly the beans are from the bag", to have a proper >> syllogism, a deduction. and in case of induction, the replacement eg. would >> be: "So probably all swans are white", to de-degenerate it into a >> deduction. or am I thinking too complicated? >> Best, >> Helmut >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 03. Mai 2016 um 19:59 Uhr >> *Von:* frances.ke...@sympatico.ca >> *An:* 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Betreff:* RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Is CP 5.189 A Syllogism? Can >> Categorial Analysis Be Worthwhile? >> >> Frances in the Wings to Helmut and Listers--- >> >> Would it not be more categorially consistent with the Peircean theory of >> signs to hold that the inferred evaluated worth of a satisfactory and >> meaningful sign in the broadest way is judged only by its informative >> interpretant. This implies that informative representamens and referred >> objects are not themselves alone part of inferences nor assigned and >> aligned structurally with inferences, so that what is inferred or judged is >> the evaluated interpreted effect of the signed information. In other words, >> the interpretant as mainly a term or proposition or argument is transferred >> by the signer to the inference and judgement as mainly an abduction or >> induction or deduction. The informative "grammatic" division of signs is >> therefore initially preparatory to the evaluative "critical" division of >> signs and inferences, which in turn is eventually contributory to the >> evocative "rhetorical" or "methodeutical" division of signs. (The >> hierarchical sequencing of the phenomenally signed categories here in this >> topical subject is merely a psychical drama used to illustrate the observed >> issues as they might really occur in the relative situation of a sign >> and in the selective mesh of evolving nature.) >> >> Note that if divisional information on the whole were forced broadly and >> generally to fit divisional evaluation on the inference, which information >> on the whole likely should not be, then across the board its representamens >> would perhaps mainly be qualitative results and objects would be factual >> cases and interpretants would be lawful rules. >> >> >> ----------------------------- 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 . >> >> >> >> >> > >
----------------------------- 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 .
