Clark, list: What is Forster's attitude toward the pragmatic maxim?
Thanks, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Jan 10, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I would be interested in getting your take on Forster's book whenever you > finish it. Nathan Houser wrote a review (http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/ > 29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/) that included a few > criticisms at the end, but Thomas Short was quite scathing in his > *Transactions *review, mainly (as far as I can tell) because Forster had > the audacity to write a different book than Short would have on the same > subject. Personally, I found it very helpful, which is why I decided to > invest in my own copy. > > > I will. I’ve enjoyed it thus far although in a few places I think he jumps > a little ahead of what his quotes actually show. But thus far it’s very > good at putting together Peirce’s actual arguments. Far too many > philosophical books treat a person’s ideas as kind of dogma that needs to > be historically situated. Philosophy is supposed to be more than that and > Forster does a good job (thus far anyway) of dealing with the reasoning. > > The NDPR review does make some good points about mixing Peirce from > different periods. Normally that’s something I really keep an eye on as in > some ways his thought changes a lot. Here though I’m not convinced it’s as > big a deal. There’s also the criticism of not drawing enough nuance and > differences in various topics like Symbol. I haven’t found that yet, but > that’s possibly because I’m not really at that part of the book yet. It > also notes Forster neglects the mature Peirce’s arguments for pragmatism. > If true that is a big failing. However if the focus is on the threat of > nominalism then probably it’s in the early Peirce one sees his fear. So > this might be one of the few areas I’d prefer the earlier Peirce to the > mature Peirce. > > To the Short crtique, I know Joe Ransdell didn’t think much of several of > Short’s views of Peirce. I’ve not read his review of Forster but wonder if > some of those differences matter here. In particular how one views Peirce’s > changing views. Clearly he changed somewhat but many, such as Ransdell, > think he changed less than I believe Short does. I can’t recall what Joe’s > view on the development of Peirce’s modal realism which I think most date > to the late 1890’s although hints of it are in the logic of what he wrote > before that. > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
