Peircers,
Here is a set of variations on the Pragmatic Maxim
that I collected a number of years ago, along with
some commentary of my own as I last left it. As I
understand them, they all say essentially the same
thing, merely differing in emphasis, point of view,
or rhetorical style as befit the moment's audience
or occasion.
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/
Regards,
Jon
On 10/15/2016 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
List:
Per Gary R.'s request, I am shifting this discussion to a new thread
topic. I would appreciate it if others would do likewise when extending
any of the other ongoing conversations about pragmatic maxims or other
subjects besides Peirce's cosmology.
There seems to be a confusion here between "*the *pragmatic maxim," which
is a very specific principle of *methodeutic *with multiple formulations in
Peirce's writings, and "*the best* pragmatic maxim," which is not something
that Peirce ever discussed as far as I can tell. In particular, CP 5.189
is not *the *pragmatic maxim, nor even *a* pragmatic maxim in the same
sense, so it is certainly not *the best* pragmatic maxim. For one thing,
as we established recently in another thread, it is the form of inference
for abduction *only*, and thus falls under logical *critic*. *The* pragmatic
maxim subsequently serves as a tool for admitting hypotheses that are
amenable to deductive explication and inductive evaluation, and rejecting
those that are not.
In any case, there is no need to guess or speculate *which *pragmatic maxim
Peirce had in mind when he wrote the following ...
That is, pragmatism proposes a certain maxim which, if sound, must render
needless any further rule as to the admissibility of hypotheses to rank as
hypotheses, that is to say, as explanations of phenomena held as hopeful
suggestions; and, furthermore, this is *all *that the maxim of pragmatism
really pretends to do, at least so far as it is confined to logic, and is
not understood as a proposition in psychology. (CP 5.196; 1903)
... because he told us *in the very next sentence*.
For the maxim of pragmatism is that a conception can have no logical effect
or import differing from that of a second conception except so far as,
taken in connection with other conceptions and intentions, it might
conceivably modify our practical conduct differently from that second
conception.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote:
John Collier, John Sowa, Kirsti Maatanen, Edwina Taborsky, list:
John Collier:
But that is my point. Isn't a pragmatic maxim to be taken strictly since
it is carefully crafted, with logographic necessity, then it shouldn't be
handled loosely. To say that such things are in the pragmatic maxim (the
pragmatic maxim and not a pragmatic maxim) also implies that it is in ONE
pragmatic maxim, the best one. So, which one? I think this is the matter
that does not get criticized enough.
______
John Sowa, Edwina:
"*logos* means something rather like calculation than religion..."
~Strauss
“The little matter of distinguishing one, two, and three --in a word, number
and calculation: --do not all arts and sciences necessarily partake of
them?
Sophist, statesman, philosopher! O my dear Theodorus, do my ears truly
witness that this is the estimate formed of them by the great calculator
and geometrician?”
~Plato
“By understanding both sophistry (in its highest as well as in its lower
meanings) and statesmanship, one will understand what philosophy
is.”~Strauss
“When a reputable witness makes, or witnesses make, an assertion which
experience renders highly improbable, or when there are other independent
arguments in its favor, each independent argument *pro* or *con* produces
a certain impression upon the mind of the wise man, dependent for its
quantity upon the frequency with which arguments of those kinds lead to the
truth, and the algebraical sum of these impressions is the resultant
impression that measures the wise man’s state of opinion on the whole.”
~Peirce
The way begets one;
One begets two;
Two begets three;
Three begets the myriad creatures.
~Lau 42
____________
Kirsti,
You said:
I just wished to point out that it indeed is very important to study in
detail the exact wording CSP worked with for decades. Especially those
wordings he stick up with in his latest years.
Peirce is greatly enhanced through a direct examination of nature.
“That is why I prefer the study of nature,” said Goethe, “which does not
allow such sickness to arise. For there we have to do with infinite and
eternal truth that immediately rejects anyone who does not proceed neatly
and honestly in observing and handling his subject. I am also certain that
many a person who is dialectically sick could find a beneficial cure in the
study of nature."
And Plato because “It (pragmaticism) appears to have been virtually the
philosophy of Socrates.”
And Aristotle because, “The principles therefore are, in a way, not more
in number than the contraries, but as it were two, nor yet precisely two,
since there is a difference of essential nature, but three…”
So, if Aristotle, Plato and Nature to understand Peirce, then how many
years for each and how would you resolve any differences, should any
conflicts arise? Which should take precedence?
I would recommend starting with Nature, then all three; more or less…
If true, then there should be no conflict and the problem would lie with
me.
"Now the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about
the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of
his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present
moment is merely this — that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that
what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince
my hearers is a secondary matter with me." ~Plato on the attitude in
dialectic
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>
wrote:
Jerry, there are various differently stated versions of the pragmatic
maxim, and it is also implicit in other work by Peirce.
One way of putting the maxim is that any difference in meaning implies a
difference in the possibilities of (external) experience on which they are
grounded. You can experience this as a feeling (what might be true) as an
inferred difference, or as an explanation of the difference. Of course,
separating the three except in the abstract, is impossible. That is what I
meant when I said I thought Edwina was right about inseperability. She may
have meant more or less that I didn’t notice.
This sort of thinking is found throughout Peirce’s writing. I don’t think
there are any grounds for controversy about that. The interesting thing to
me, in this case, is that it can be applied reflectively.
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
*From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Saturday, 15 October 2016 6:31 PM
*To:* John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>
*Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology
John Collier, list:
You said: I agree with Edwina that all three elements are involved in
the pragmatic maxim.
Do you mind stating where, in the pragmatic maxim, it says this?
I'm not questioning whether it is or not. I'm just not sure to what you
are referring.
Thank you,
Jerry R
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
