(With the holidays I’ve not had time to read all the posts of the last few days - one quick comment then I’ll shutup and read before commenting)
> On Nov 23, 2016, at 4:55 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Clark wrote: > > I’d imagine the interesting question regarding democracy is how it relates to > societal inquiry. That is the more interesting question is less the > boundaries of democracy as compared to competing institutions than the > different types of governments within democracy. > > I think that in a general sense that is "the more interesting question," and > if it could br addressed in light of Peirce's views, well that would be very > interesting indeed. But principally I'm hoping to get at the specific sense > in which Peirce viewed democracy and related concepts, then possibly > comparing/contrasting his views with Dewey's, Talisse's, Hook's, etc., and, > especially, contemporary views. I think that the group of quotations which > Stefan offered might be a good place to look for at least hints of how Peirce > viewed democracy, political economy, republicanism, etc. It also may prove to > be 'slim pickin's'. Partially I suspect with regards to explicit comments it’s not something he’s done a lot on (although I may be mistaken there). I’ve not read Talisse’s book which puts me at a disadvantage. I was already in the process of reading Misak’s Truth, Politics, Morality: Pragmatism and Deliberation. That is much more about the place of truth in politics though. So part of her concern is how the experiences of others is so important for inquiry and democracy provides a means for that to emerge into community knowledge. Part of her approach is to contrast two extremes of Rorty and Schmitt’s authoritarianism. (A popular view in the pre-war era) Much of the work is arguing via Peirce against Schmitt’s type of authoritarianism. While that seems dated perhaps in the contemporary era of China and Russia and the rise of neo-nationalism it’s relevant. Part of the problem is that the question is really less about justice than the practical implementation within government. That just doesn’t seem like the sort of thing he’d focus on. Although clearly he does address many forms of authoritarianism which have practical implications. So far as I’m aware he just never addressed the more Bismarkian reforms even though he lived at the beginning of its heyday. However given that the problems of that sort of government hadn’t really emerged in his lifetime, it might well be that there’s a conflict between his philosophy and his views. (Assuming he actually makes an explicit account) I’d imagine though the simplest answer is that do to justice requires practical knowledge and the best way to gain that knowledge is via community inquiry. Democracy enables that better than other forms of government. > Talisse's work, with which I introduced this topic, might also provide an > entree to Peirce's view. Stephen offered an excerpt from that book, A > Pragmatist Philosophy of Democracy, from which the following snippet is > excerpted; this too might suggest a driection for our inquiry: > > RT: the Peircean can offer epistemological reasons to support more > aggressive policies of distributive justice, or fundamental reforms of the > news media which need not appeal to “growth,” but only to the prerequisites > of proper epistemic activity. For unlike “growth,” the ideal of promoting > epistemic responsibility amongst a population of democratic citizens is > not reasonably rejectable. I’m not sure what they mean by “aggressive policies of distributive justice.” I assume we’re talking more radical than say the status quo in European neo-liberal governments of the post-cold war era. Again the debates on these points, outside of a few libertarians, seems based upon practical concerns much more than very abstract ones. (Often tied to Rawl’s revised Kantian approach within the more liberal tradition) But again I just don’t see Peirce addressing such matters much. Interestingly Misak’s book addresses not these economic concerns but the larger issue of redistribution of societal means of expression in a society. That is if voices must be heard within democracy (broadly speaking) then a way to get those voices heard should be the goal. Interestingly this is something most Democracies have not done well tending to privilege only certain voices (either of the rich or those in the dominant political view) This is of course a constant complaint by conservatives that conservative voices are too excluded especially in academic circles. (In preference to center left or left views) One could well argue that the unfortunate Trump revolution is in part a result of excluding voices from a certain component of Democracy. (Exactly how people interpret that of course depends upon the division between press, academics and the actual representatives in government)
----------------------------- 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 .
