Jerry - the concept of empiricism, i.e., that knowledge is dervied from the
evidence of the senses, is as old as Aristotle - who espoused just that [along
with the use of reason].
But as a societal force, with its insistence that the individual and that
individual's direct contact with the world, is the source of knowledge - that
emerged, in my view, from at least the 13th century, which rebelled against the
church and theistic ownership of knowledge, which was defined as non-sensual
and purely rational.
As for the historical emergence of the term in philosophy.....I'm sure someone
can answer that.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry LR Chandler
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: John Collier ; Peirce-L
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
John, Edwina, List:
I am more than a bit surprised by the assertions that the Middle Ages gave
birth to "Empirism".
Does anyone have a convenient reference to the historical emergence of this
term in philosophy?
Cheers
Jerry
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 5, 2017, at 10:24 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
John:
Agreed, empiricism started in the 'middle ages' - and my point is that no
'thought-ideology' exists in a vacuum. Empiricism became an observable if
peripheral force in the 13th century, as did the shift towards empowering
individuals.
I consider that philosophical ideologies do not exist in a vacuum but
co-exist with political ideologies. My point is which ones are dominant?
No- I am not confusing societal 'logic' [??]....with scientific logic. [I
hate the term sociological for the abuses of thought found within so many
sociology treatises]... Philosophic ideology is not the same as scientific
logic. I am suggesting that a philosophical ideology is correlated with a
societal ideology - and that empiricism, which began at least to emerge in
open discourse in the 13th c, is correlated with the political ideology that
affirmed support for individual interaction with the world.
I certainly agree: Peirce wasn't political at all. My point is only that
HIS analysis, with its three categories, works very well to disempower the
extremes of both empiricism and idealism.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: John Collier
To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce-L
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I don’t agree. Edwina. Empiricism started in the Middle ages and went
through periods of profound social transformation since while being changed
relatively little.
I don’t think it is a political ideology.
I think that confusing sociological and scientific logic with each
together leads to confusion, with which your post is rife. Much of what you say
about empiricism just strikes me as irrelevant, with multitude counterexamples
I won’t go into here except to note that empiricism co-existed with m any
political ideologies.
I don’t think that Peirce was particularly political in his logic or
methodology, though I understand his politics tended to towards the
conservative. He didn’t write much about real political issues of his time, and
I doubt it was a major influence in his overall though.
John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Sunday, 05 February 2017 5:58 PM
To: John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>; Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
I think that even a philosophical ideology , eg, the 'classic form of
empiricism', has to be grounded in the societal infrastructure.
Political ideologies certainly must be grounded; I think it's an error to
say, for example, the 'democracy is the best political system', for any
political system must give political power to that section of the population
that produces wealth and so enables continuity of that society. If the majority
of the population are producing wealth, then, democracy is the most functional
political system. If only a minority are producing wealth [and this was the
case for most of mankind's economic history], then, democracy would be
dysfunctional.
What about philosophical ideologies? Are they isolated from grounding in
the societal infrastructure? I've outlined my view of the enormous societal
impact of the rise of empiricism, which empowered ordinary individuals to
interact, as they saw fit, with the world. The slippery slope downside is that
it easily moves into the randomness of postmodern relativism and chaos.
What about realism? How does it societally function? It removes the
individual from sole access to 'truth' and inserts a 'community of scholars'.
This removes randomness from the analysis. It posits a truth system based
around general rules, where individual articulations of these rules are just
that: individual and transient versions but almost minor in their real-life
power except as versions of those rules. This has its own slippery slope of
fundamental determinism and we've seen the results in many eras in our world
history, including modern times.
Peirce dealt with this with his focus on the freedom of Firstness and
his view that the rules [Thirdness] evolve and adapt. This would enable a
society to have a rule of law, with local variations - something required in a
'growth society' - i.e., a modern society as differentiated from a no-growth or
pre-industrial society.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: John Collier
To: Jerry LR Chandler
Cc: Peirce List ; Eric Charles ; Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 3:18 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - “The union of units
unifies the unity”
Jerry, I think we are using ‘empiricism’ differently. I was using it in
the classic form, not just to refer to anyone who uses the natural world as a
touchstone for clarifying meaning and discovering the truth. I am an empiricist
in this latter sense, but not the former.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
