Gary, List, long speak, short forgotten conclusions: I believe that two directions could be fruitful to understand Peirce idea of democracy better. First, thinking with Habermas that (ideal) scientific communities can be a blueprint for (ideal) democracies. Second, diving deeper into Peirce ethics in comparison to Socrates idea of Ethics. Peirce makes a few short comments about Socrates as one of the forefathers of pragmatism (it's a wild guess, but there could be something interesting)
Best, Stefan Am 23. November 2016 23:29:37 MEZ, schrieb Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>: >Stefan, List, > >Stefan, thanks for bringing together these several relevant Peirce >quotations. You concluded your post: > >The context for Peirce thinking about democracy and political economy >are >obviously his religious ideas. Central concepts in this context are >love >and greed/ altruism and egoism. This brings immediatly Aristoteles >classification of forms of government to my mind (Pol. III, 6 f.). > > >government of... altruistic >good >egoistic >bad >one >monarchy >tyranny >few aristocracy >oligarchy >many politeía >democracy > > >Maybe this could be a direction to think more about Peirce and >democracy... > >I'm not so sure that reflecting on Aristotle's views in this matter >will >help us much in getting at Peirce's. I would , however, tend to >strongly >agree with you that "The context for Peirce thinking about democracy >and >political economy are obviously his religious ideas. Central concepts >in >this context are love and greed/ altruism and egoism." >I'm not sure why this brought Aristotle's classification "immediately" >to >your mind given that Aristotle's views would seem to have little to do >with >religion, love, and greed. As for Peirce's view (if not exactly of >democracy, at least of what underpins political economy), it seems to >me to >be admirably represented by this quotation which you offered which >contrasts the Gospel of Christ (i.e., of Love) with the Gospel of >Greed. > >6.294. Here, then, is the issue. The gospel of Christ says that >progress >comes from every individual merging his individuality in sympathy with >his >neighbors. On the other side, the conviction of the nineteenth century >is >that progress takes place by virtue of every individual’s striving for >himself with all his might and trampling his neighbor under foot >whenever >he gets a chance to do so. This may accurately be called the Gospel of >Greed >. > >Peirce most surely did not have anything good to say about social >Darwinism. > >While for Aristotle democracy is not a good form of government, one >ought >recall that for him the concept of democracy is rule by the indigent or >needy (I'm not sure why this gets democracy placed among the 'egoistic' >forms of government). The better form for him is, as in your diagram >above, >that of the *politeía* composed, I take it, of those with enough time >and >resources to pursue virtue (one might assume, in the interest of the >general good), so certainly not the common people. *Politeía* is, >however, >a problematic term in Aristotle's work and is to this day much debated >as >he does not use it in a consistent sense in *Politics*. But, in any >event, >even a benevolent monarchy is preferable to a democracy in Aristotle's >sense of that concept. > >Best, > >Gary R > > >[image: Gary Richmond] > >*Gary Richmond* >*Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >*Communication Studies* >*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >*C 745* >*718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > >On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:06 PM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: > >> Gary, Clark, List, >> >> You may recall that I concluded my message which began this thread >with >> this question: can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations >which >> might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? >> >> when i search the CP for "democra" there are only three hits. Just >because >> of curiosity i also searched for "Jefferson" and "Tocqueville"but >there >> were no results. Hits in CP I and CP VI are: >> >> CP 1.654. Common sense, which is the resultant of the traditional >> experience of mankind, witnesses unequivocally that the heart is more >than >> the head, and is in fact everything in our highest concerns, thus >agreeing >> with my unproved logical theorem; and those persons who think that >> sentiment has no part in common sense forget that the dicta of common >sense >> are objective facts, not the way some dyspeptic may feel, but what >the >> healthy, natural, normal *democracy* thinks. And yet when you open >the >> next new book on the philosophy of religion that comes out, the >chances are >> that it will be written by an intellectualist who in his preface >offers you >> his metaphysics as a guide for the soul, talking as if philosophy >were one >> of our deepest concerns. How can the writer so deceive himself? >> ---- >> CP 6.449. Many a scientific man and student of philosophy recognizes >that >> it is the Christian church which has made him a man among men. To it >he >> owes consolations, enjoyments, escapes from great perils, and >whatever >> rectitude of heart and purpose may be his. To the monks of the >medieval >> church he owes the preservation of ancient literature; and without >the >> revival of learning he can hardly see how the revival of science >would have >> been possible. To them he owes the framework of his intellectual >system, >> and if he speaks English, a most important part of his daily speech. >The >> law of love which, however little it be obeyed, he holds to be the >soul of >> civilization, came to Europe through Christianity. Besides, religion >is a >> great, perhaps the greatest, factor of that social life which extends >> beyond one’s own circle of personal friends. That life is everything >for >> elevated, and humane, and *democratic* civilization; and if one >renounces >> the Church, in what other way can one as satisfactorily exercise the >> faculty of fraternizing with all one‘s neighbours? >> >> In CP VIII: >> >> Peirce: CP 8 Bibliography General 1875 [G-1875-1]1875 >> 3. “A Plan and an Illustration” (on proportional representation), The >> *Democratic* Party; A Political Study, by a Political Zero (Melusina >Fay >> Peirce), John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, 1875, pp. 36-37. Both the >whole >> work and Peirce’s contribution are anonymous, but these are >identified in >> [Fisch-Haskell]. >> >> The publication by Melusina can be found here: >> http://www.unav.es/gep/TheDemocraticPartyMichigan.pdf >> >> Using the keyword "republic" i find: >> >> CP 2.654 To be logical men should not be selfish; and, in point of >fact, >> they are not so selfish as they are thought. The willful prosecution >of >> one’s desires is a different thing from selfishness. The miser is not >> selfish; his money does him no good, and he cares for what shall >become of >> it after his death. We are constantly speaking of *our* possessions >on >> the Pacific, and of *our* destiny as a *republic*, where no personal >> interests are involved, in a way which shows that we have wider ones. >We >> discuss with anxiety the possible exhaustion of coal in some hundreds >of >> years, or the cooling-off of the sun in some millions, and show in >the most >> popular of all religious tenets that we can conceive the possibility >of a >> man‘s descending into hell for the salvation of his fellows. >> >> CP 2.654 Now, it is not necessary for logicality that a man should >> himself be capable of the heroism of self-sacrifice. It is sufficient >that >> he should recognize the possibility of it, should perceive that only >that >> man’s inferences who has it are really logical, and should >consequently >> regard his own as being only so far valid as they would be accepted >by the >> hero. So far as he thus refers his inferences to that standard, he >becomes >> identified with such a mind. >> ---- >> >> CP 5.355. That being the case, it becomes interesting to inquire how >it is >> with men as a matter of fact. There is a psychological theory that >man >> cannot act without a view to his own pleasure. This theory is based >on a >> falsely assumed subjectivism. Upon our principles of the objectivity >of >> knowledge, it could not be based; and if they are correct, it is >reduced to >> an absurdity. It seems to me that the usual opinion of the >selfishness of >> man is based in large measure upon this false theory. I do not think >that >> the facts bear out the usual opinion. The immense self-sacrifices >which the >> most wilful men often make, show that wilfulness is a very different >thing >> from selfishness. The care that men have for what is to happen after >they >> are dead, cannot be selfish. And finally and chiefly, the constant >use of >> the word ”*we*“ -- as when we speak of our possessions on the Pacific >-- >> our destiny as a *republic* -- in cases in which no personal >interests at >> all are involved, show conclusively that men do not make their >personal >> interests their only ones, and therefore may, at least, subordinate >them to >> the interests of the community. >> >> In CP 8.41 and CP 4.231 P just refers to Platos Republic. And CP >7.601 is >> from my point of view also of lesser interest: >> >> He will not even name him (perhaps to spare the family), but refers >to him >> by various satirical nick-names, especially as ”*Thrasymachus,*“†4 -- >a >> foolish character introduced into the *Republic* and another dialogue >of >> Plato for the purpose of showing how vastly such an ignorant >pretender to >> philosophy is inferior to Socrates (that is, to Plato himself) in >every >> quality of mind and heart, and especially in good manners. >> >> The search terms "vote" and "voting" don't produce any hits related >to a >> discussion of democracy. >> >> Since Peirce mentions democracy within the context of his religious >ideas >> i also included a search for "political economy", because his views >on >> political economy are also influenced by religion: >> >> CP 1.75 The old-fashioned *political economist* adored, as alone >capable >> of redeeming the human race, the glorious principle of individual >greed, >> although, as this principle requires for its action hypocrisy and >fraud, he >> generally threw in some dash of inconsistent concessions to virtue, >as a >> sop to the vulgar Cerberus. But it is easy to see that the only kind >of >> science this principle would favor would be such as is immediately >> remunerative with a great preference for such as can be kept secret, >like >> the modern sciences of dyeing and perfumery. >> ---- >> >> 6.290. The nineteenth century is now fast sinking into the grave, and >we >> all begin to review its doings and to think what character it is >destined >> to bear as compared with other centuries in the minds of future >historians. >> It will be called, I guess, the Economical Century; for political >economy >> has more direct relations with all the branches of its activity than >has >> any other science. Well, *political economy* has its formula of >> redemption, too. It is this: Intelligence in the service of greed >ensures >> the justest prices, the fairest contracts, the most enlightened >conduct of >> all the dealings between men, and leads to the summum bonum, food in >plenty >> and perfect comfort. Food for whom? Why, for the greedy master of >> intelligence. I do not mean to say that this is one of the legitimate >> conclusions of political economy, the scientific character of which I >fully >> acknowledge. But the study of doctrines, themselves true, will often >> temporarily encourage generalizations extremely false, as the study >of >> physics has encouraged necessitarianism. What I say, then, is that >the >> great attention paid to economical questions during our century has >induced >> an exaggeration of the beneficial effects of greed and of the >unfortunate >> results of sentiment, until there has resulted a philosophy which >comes >> unwittingly to this, that greed is the great agent in the elevation >of the >> human race and in the evolution of the universe. >> >> CP 6.291 I open a handbook of *political economy* †1 -- the most >typical >> and middling one I have at hand -- and there find some remarks of >which I >> will here make a brief analysis. I omit qualifications, sops thrown >to >> Cerberus, phrases to placate Christian prejudice, trappings which >serve to >> hide from author and reader alike the ugly nakedness of the >greed-god. But >> I have surveyed my position. The author enumerates “three motives to >human >> action:†2 >> >> CP 6.291The love of self; >> >> CP 6.291The love of a limited class having common interests and >feelings >> with one‘s self; >> >> CP 6.291The love of mankind at large.” >> ---- >> >> 6.294. Here, then, is the issue. The gospel of Christ says that >progress >> comes from every individual merging his individuality in sympathy >with his >> neighbors. On the other side, the conviction of the nineteenth >century is >> that progress takes place by virtue of every individual’s striving >for >> himself with all his might and trampling his neighbor under foot >whenever >> he gets a chance to do so. This may accurately be called the Gospel >of >> *Greed*. >> ---- >> >> 7.96. In all the explanatory sciences theories far more simple than >the >> real facts are of the utmost service in enabling us to analyse the >> phenomena, and it may truly be said that physics could not possibly >deal >> even with its relatively simple facts without such analytic >procedure. >> Thus, the kinetical theory of gases, when first propounded, was >obliged to >> assume that all the molecules were elastic spheres, which nobody >could >> believe to be true. If this is necessary even in physics, it is far >more >> indispensable in every other science, and most of all in the moral >> sciences, such as *political economy*. Here the sane method is to >begin >> by considering persons placed in situations of extreme simplicity, in >the >> utmost contrast to those of all human society, and animated by >motives and >> by reasoning powers equally unlike those of real men. Nevertheless, >in this >> way alone can a base be obtained from which to proceed to the >consideration >> of the effects of different complications. Owing to the necessity of >making >> theories far more simple than the real facts, we are obliged to be >cautious >> in accepting any extreme consequences of them, and to be also upon >our >> guard against apparent refutations of them based upon such extreme >> consequences. >> >> Other hits for political economy can be found in: >> >> CP 2.4, CP 3.405, CP 4.210, CP 4.114, 5.377, CP 6.517, CP 6.612, CP >7.64, >> CP 7.66, CP 8.6, CP 8 Bibliography General c.1893 [G-c.1893-5] >> >> For "greed" in: >> >> CP 6.292, CP 6.293, CP 6.294, CP 6.297, CP 6.311, CP 7.265, CP 8 >> Bibliography General c.1893 [G-c.1893-5] >> >> The context for Peirce thinking about democracy and political economy >are >> obviously his religious ideas. Central concepts in this context are >love >> and greed/ altruism and egoism. This brings immediatly Aristoteles >> classification of forms of government to my mind (Pol. III, 6 f.). >> >> government of... altruistic >> good >> egoistic >> bad >> one >> monarchy >> tyranny >> few aristocracy >> oligarchy >> many politeía >> democracy >> >> Maybe this could be a direction to think more about Peirce and >democracy... >> >> Best, >> Stefan >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
----------------------------- 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 .
