Jerry, list,
CSP wrote: the meaning of anything lies in what it aims at. - This what
teleology is about.
The problem lies in that we cannot just just look and see what the aims
are. - Can you now just see what my aim now is? - You may and most
probably do have thoughts and opinions on the issue, but how about
finding out whether they are true about this particular case?
Putnam quote takes up only one side of the issue of finding out. Also
the other side, that of loosing one's way, finding oneself utterly
confused, loosing one's foothold etc.
Reading Aristotle often does that. So does reading CSP, or Hegel etc..
Wittgenstein even made it kind of his aim.
CSP was quite clear in his critique of relying on the method of
authority only. But it is very often gone unnoticed that he did not just
condemn it. His advice was to try (whatever) out first, as best one can.
And only if one can find independent proof, not just once but
repeatedly, THEN accept some (or much) authority to the writer in
question.
These belong to the basics of scientific proof by empirical testing. No
results of a single experiment proves anything. There always has to be a
series of expreriments.
Along with the common belief that single words carry a meaning which
simply can be defined (which does not fit with the just as common
agreement that all meanings are contextual), there goes the belief that
scientific facts are provided by results of any single empirical
experiment.
All and any empirical experiments may have methodical faults. Which may
undermine the results. - This is much more often the case than is
commonly believed. - CSP knew that very well. Having thoroughly explored
the very idea of probablity and its consequences.
He also explicitely wrote that he does not wish to be a shepherd
followed by a pack of lambs. That he wished all and everyone to try out
oneself. He advised NOT TO BELIEVE just BECAUSE HE SAID so and so.
So, you are quite right in questioning all BECAUSE types of grounds.
It may be easy to read Aristotle, but it is not definitely not easy to
understand what he meant. Disputes on that have no end.
I've had long discussions with most expert Aristotelians in Finland on
some issues. (The major works by Aristotle were translated into Finnish.
A huge project, a huge investment in our scale.)
On the issue of ultimate aim the answer by CSP was very clear,
oftentimes repeated in various wordings. On this issue he said that,
like THE TRUTH, it cannot be known, but only foreseen as kinds of
schetches. - All aims, by their natur AS aims point at the future, and
the future is never yet here. As such it always remains vague.
If there is no future, there cannot be any aims. But if there is no
future (the cosmos collapses ot so), there are no us to ponder about it.
We humans just have to live with this. Faring as well and best as we
can.
Best, Kirsti
P.S. I do not put refererences to CSP's writings in my contributions to
the list, because anyone nowadays can find those by making an internet
search, just by combining some key words. - Let's have machines do what
they can do, and leave us humans to do what the machines cannot do.
Sorry for typos, but I do not have time or energy to look this over.
Those who are interested in what I aim to convey, will look beyond
trivialities.
Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 3.1.2018 22:17:
Dear gary, list,
If what Gary adds of John about Putnam is true,
“I like to quote a comment that Hilary Putnam made about Aristotle:
"Whenever I become clearer about a subject, I find that Aristotle has
also become clearer."
I would make that same comment about Peirce.”
Then is it obvious to you that Peirce and Aristotle (among others) are
talking about one great big thing that has relation to several similar
things?
it seems to me that the logician ought to recognize what our ultimate
aim is.
.. it is clear that this one ultimate End must be the Good, and indeed
the Supreme Good.
Will not then a knowledge of this Supreme Good be also of great
practical importance for the conduct of life? Will it not better
enable us to attain our proper object, like archers having a target to
aim at?
If this be so, we ought to make an attempt to determine at all events
in outline what exactly this Supreme Good is, and of which of the
sciences or faculties it is the object.
That is, if nothing is complete which has no end and only one thing is
the ultimate aim,
then why do I find it so bizarre to justify our actions with:
_ _
_because_ Peirce..
_because_ Aristotle..
_because_ ultimate aim?
I would greatly appreciate someone explaining this joke to me so that
I may
_redirect my attention to the subject_,
recognize that it is clear it has a reality, in _some_ mode of being,
which is independent of what anyone thinks about it,
“become clearer” and lead to a modification of those habits
3. Aristotle. Have read and thought more about Aristotle than about
any other man.
Best,
Jerry R
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote:
John Sowa wrote,
“I like to quote a comment that Hilary Putnam made about
Aristotle: "Whenever I become clearer about a subject, I find that
Aristotle has also become clearer."
I would make that same comment about Peirce.”
Amen to that! And if I may clarify more minutely:
Becoming clearer about a _subject_ begins with assuming —
provisionally at least — that it has a reality, in _some_ mode of
being, which is independent of what anyone thinks about it. This
reality involves the _possibility_ of perceiving the real difference
between true and false thoughts about it.
Finding that Peirce has become clearer _about that subject_ means
perceiving the _real relations_ between its reality and Peirce’s
actual words about it. The reality _of those relations_ consists in
the fact that they are what they are independently of what anyone
thinks about them. But the increase in clarity which I find in
Peirce is a result of _my thoughts_ about the real subject coming
into greater conformity with _Peirce’s actual words_ about it.
This clarity may turn out (upon further study of both the subject
and Peirce’s words) to be an illusion. But in any case, it results
from Peirce’s actual words _redirecting my attention to the
subject_, to some extent. Only in this way can my thoughts about the
subject (or about Peirce’s thoughts) gain a measure of
independence from my own previous habits of language usage (or of
reading Peirce). To me, “becoming clearer” refers to a
modification of those habits.
I know, it’s like explaining a joke, which takes all the fun out
of it. But what could be more Peircean?
Gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 3-Jan-18 03:04
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Modal logic
On 1/1/2018 7:07 AM, Auke van Breemen wrote:
I am quite sure Peirce felt rationally necessitated to be of the
opinion that it is not allowed to favor his suggestions after they
pop
up only on the basis that they are written by him.
I agree. But Peirce would also insist that readers should make a
clear distinction between his exact words and anybody else's
interpretation. Note how strongly he objected to the version of
pragmatism by William James. He even replaced the word 'pragmatism'
with 'pragmaticism' to avoid any confusion.
As I said in my note about ways of studying Peirce, the first is
trying to determine exactly what he said. But there may be 5, 7, or
indefinitely (infinitely?) many ways of interpreting, building on,
using, and extending his work.
Filling in gaps tentatively due to inaccessible manuscripts offers
a
chance to check our understanding at some future time, as well of
the
text as of the object the text tries to understand.
Yes, of course. There has been a century of developments that
Peirce could not have known. Even for those subjects he knew very
well, he did not provide an exhaustive analysis of every detail. We
must fill in those gaps, but we also have to be clear about the
sources.
And by the way, I like to quote a comment that Hilary Putnam made
about Aristotle: "Whenever I become clearer about a subject, I find
that Aristotle has also become clearer."
I would make that same comment about Peirce.
John
-----------------------------
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 [1] .
Links:
------
[1] 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 .
