Hello Brad, A very interesting theme you have taken on. A challenging one, too.
Apel and Deely come from very different traditions. I guess about all listers have read Deely (on Peirce), but none to my knowledge has read Apel (on Peirce). Except me. - I'd like to know if there are some other seasoned listers with an interest in the views of Apel on CSP.
Early on I took the habit of avoiding any reading of interpretations on any classic texts before I had got the feel of understanding the classic in question on its own right. (Invented many kinds of tests to my correct understanding in the way.)
Now you have taken the job of comparing two eminent writers with a very, very different background and standpoints. Different traditions of thought.
If you are seaching for earlier publications comparing Deely's interpretations and those of Apel, I suspect there is none to find.
How come you got interested in Apel? - I am a European philospher, so of course I do know Apel, and not only on CSP.
My best, Kirsti Määttänen Tampere University, Finland Brad Venner kirjoitti 15.6.2017 20:19:
Hi, all. My name is Brad Venner - I'm a new list subscriber. I'd like to put together a paper comparing the approaches of John Deely and Karl-Otto Apel, in memorium of their recent passing (Deely in Jan 2017; Apel in May 2017). I'm thinking of focusing on their history of philosophy projects as a frame. Both credit Peirce as the originator of a new philosophical age. Apel considers three major phases of "first philosophy" (ontology, transcendental subject, transcendental semiotics) while Deely considers four (ancient, latin, modern, post-modern). Thus Deely splits the ancient age into Greek and Latin phases. This difference seems related to their overall emphasis on Peirce's influences - Apel emphasizes the Kantian influences, while Deely emphasizes the Latin influences. Apel's term "transcendental semiotics" caries this Kantian/Latin distinction. I haven't found any such direct comparisons in the literature so far, which concerns me a little, since it almost certainly reflects my ignorance of philosophy (I'm a professional statistician). If anyone has any relevant references that I've missed, or related ideas that you know of, I'd appreciate if you would post them to the list. Thanks!
----------------------------- 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 .
