Where can I find Peirce’s: An Essay toward Improving our Reasoning in Security
and Liberty, from 1913??
Best
Søren
From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 14. februar 2017 21:24
To: Clark Goble
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -
Eric, list:
Here is how I understand the nature of your thought:
You consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, you
conceive the object of claiming about the nature of other people’s thoughts to
have. Then your conception of these effects, which makes you raise your
eyebrow and get twitchy, is the whole of your conception of the object.
And so, now what? What does the Jamesian maxim and not Peircean recommend?
For a Peircean would recognize that some “perversity of thought of whole
generations may cause the postponement of the ultimate fixation”.
~What Pragmatism Is
“Nevertheless in the nature of the case the essential elements of demonstration
are three: the subject, the attributes, and the basic premisses.
I say ‘must believe’, because all syllogism, and therefore a fortiori
demonstration, is addressed not to the spoken word, but to the discourse within
the soul, and though we can always raise objections to the spoken word, to the
inward discourse we cannot always object.
That which is capable of proof but assumed by the teacher without proof is, if
the pupil believes and accepts it, hypothesis, though only in a limited sense
hypothesis-that is, relatively to the pupil; if the pupil has no opinion or a
contrary opinion on the matter, the same assumption is an illegitimate
postulate. Therein lies the distinction between hypothesis and illegitimate
postulate: the latter is the contrary of the pupil’s opinion, demonstrable, but
assumed and used without demonstration (Post. An. I-10).
And therefore, “I have long ago come to be guided by this maxim: that as long
as it is practically certain that we cannot directly, nor with much accuracy
even indirectly, observe what passes in the consciousness of any other person,
while it is far from certain that we can do so (and accurately record what [we]
can even glimpse at best but very glibberly) even in the case of what shoots
through our own minds, it is much safer to define all mental characters as far
as possible in terms of their outward manifestations.”
~An Essay toward Reasoning in Security and Uberty
That is,
What is C?
What is A?
What is B?
Hth,
Jerry R
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Clark Goble
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Feb 14, 2017, at 8:41 AM, Eric Charles
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yikes! My inner William James just raised an eyebrow. This is probably a
separate thread... but how did we suddenly start making claims about the nature
of other people's thoughts?
"People think, not so much in words, but in images and diagrams..." They do?
How many people's thoughts have we interrogated to determine that?
"Consciousness is inherently linguistic." It is? How much have we studied
altered states of consciousness, or even typical consciousness?
Sorry, these parts of Peirce always make me a bit twitchy. I'm quite
comfortable when he is talking about how scientists-qua-scientists think or
act, but then he makes more general statements and I get worried.
Are those two statements really controversial? Honestly asking. It seems much
of our consciousness isn’t primarily linguistic. We are, admittedly, deciding
this both upon introspection as well as reports of how other people experience
it. This gets into the question of what we mean by thinking of course. Peirce
was much more open to thinking not primarily being about what we’re conscious
of. To the linguistic point I’m not sure that’s controversial either. The idea
that our consciousness of objects has an “as” structure seems common. That is
the idea that we don’t just see a blue sky as raw sense data we then
consciously interpret. Instead we see the sky as blue with blue and sky having
those linguistic aspects even if we don’t pay much attention to it.
None of this is to deny that we can have non-linguistic experiences. But I’m
just not seeing the problem. (Completely open to being wrong here of course)
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
