Hi Eric,
Welcome to the list! Looking at what Lady Welby in *Meaning and Metaphor* says of Jowett, he the famous translator of Plato’s works and possessing the proper sensibility: “In his “Dialogues of Plato” Professor Jowett warned us twenty years ago of our linguistic dangers, repeating his warning with greater emphasis and in fresh forms in the admirable essays added in the edition just published. He urges that the “greatest lesson which the philosophical analysis of language teaches us is, that we should be above language, making words our servants and not allowing them to be our masters. (cf., “to be masters of our own meaning” *Peirce*, JR) “Words,” he tells us, “appear to be isolated but they are really the parts of an organism which is always being reproduced. They are refined by civilization, harmonized by poetry, emphasized by literature, technically applied in philosophy and art; they are used as symbols on the border-ground of human knowledge; they receive a fresh impress from individual genius, and come with a new force and association to every lively-minded person.” And, of course, here is a direct warning from Jowett: “The famous dispute between Nominalists and Realists would never have been heard of, if… the spirit of Plato had been truly understood and appreciated.” The analogy of the nominalist/realist distinction *is* simply sophist/philosopher. That is, nominalist: realist :: sophist: philosopher. This creates problems. Not only for the fact that there is a range of good/bad sophists, but also that no one wants to be a sophist/nominalist because they’re not the heroes, it is the philosopher. But this is the state of society, for philosophers are so few; most of us are vulgar and not wise because we do not possess the perspective of the philosopher; for we lack experience in things beautiful. Neither is Socrates wise, if to be the philosopher is to be wise, which creates a tension that is relieved in the *Apology*, “Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, such wisdom as is attainable by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom, which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself.” In any case, important philosophical themes in Plato’s demonstrations of this nominalism/realism, James/Peirce, James’ pragmatic maxim/Peirce’s pragmatic maxim analogical tension is given in *Gorgias*. I recommend Benardete’s *The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy* to get a classicist’s interpretation for what it means to get a hold of important themes. I would like to add that the regularity *is* interlocutors walking away. So the question is how to get out of that dilemma. “What argument would remould such people?” ~Aristotle, *Nichomachean Ethics X, 9* Hth, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> wrote: > Dear Eric, > Here is one practical implication. Is a human really by nature, as > Aristotle said, a zoon politikon, a political (polis or community) animal, > determined to live well, whose end is to be found in the good life of the > community? > Or is a human by nature simply an animal, determined, as Hobbes > nominalistically put it, to live in an individualistic "state of nature" as > "...a condition of Warre of every one against every one," which required a > social contract for there to be society. > This nominalistic view of the social as conventional and as divorced > from nature entails a view that society is a non-natural construction. > Peirce's realism allows the social as constituent of nature and reality > itself. > Gene Halton > > On Jan 27, 2017 6:19 PM, "Eric Charles" <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Oh hey, my first post to the list.... >> >> I must admit that I find much of the recent discussion baffling. In part, >> this is because I have never had anyone explain the Nominalism-Realism >> distinction in a way that made sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I think I >> understand the argument in the ancient context. However, one of the biggest >> appeals of American Philosophy, for me, is its ability to eliminate (or >> disarm) longstanding philosophical problems. >> >> With that in mind, I have never been able to make sense of the >> nominalist-realist debate in the context of Peirce (or James, etc.). The >> best I can do is to wonder: If I am, in a general sense, a realist, in that >> I think people respond to things (without any *a priori* dualistic >> privileging of mental things vs. physical things), what difference does it >> make if I think collections-of-responded-to-things are "real" as a >> collection, or just a collection of "reals"? >> >> I know it might be a big ask, but could someone give an attempt at >> explaining it to me? Either the old fashioned way, by explaining what issue >> is at argument here.... or, if someone is feeling *even more* >> adventurous, by explaining what practical difference it makes in my action >> which side of this debate I am on (i.e., what habit will I have formed if I >> firmly believe one way or the other?). >> >> Best, >> Eric >> >> ----------- >> Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. >> Supervisory Survey Statistician >> U.S. Marine Corps >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 .
