Excellent piece. And excellent quote which I think I had better paste in. I created the triad Reality Ethics Aesthetics as a suggested post-Peirce basis for philosophy. It fits in with previous quotes in this thread and explicitly so with the following: “Esthetics and logic seem at first blush to belong to different universes . . . . [But] that seeming is illusory; on the contrary, logic needs the help of esthetics.” Just as it needs the help of ethics: “Logical goodness and badness, which we shall find is simply the distinction of *Truth *and *Falsity*in general, amounts in the last analysis to nothing but a peculiar application of the more general distinction of Moral Goodness and Badness, or Righteousness and Wickedness.” Peirce does not mean to equate these three realms, of course, for that would lead to the conclusion that every fallacy is a sin, which is absurd. But he does insist, in a manner reminiscent of Cardinal Newman, that “good morals and good reasoning are closely allied.”
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All: > > A quarter of a century ago (December 1993), several of the subjects of > this discussion thread (either explicit, implied, or merely mentioned) were > rather eloquently addressed in an article in *First Things*, "Discovering > the American Aristotle," by Edward T. Oakes: > > https://www.firstthings.com/article/1993/12/003-discovering-the-american- > aristotle > > > *Ben Novak* > 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=5129+Taylor+Drive,+Ave+Maria,+FL+34142&entry=gmail&source=g> > Telephone: (814) 808-5702 > Mobile: (814) 424-8501 > > *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts > themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar > of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a > sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear > accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks Jon. That is a direct confirmation of the rather over the top >> dispatch of Aristotle in the quote I sent. My own work maintained initially >> that Aristotle's ethics were responsible for the ethical problems of our >> first two millennia and I laid that at the feet of his reliance on virtues >> which is indisputable. OTH Aristotle reads almost modern and cannot be >> superseded by Peirce unless others see his work as seismic in the same >> sense that A's work became seen. I see Shakespeare as a pre-Percean and a >> marvelous antidote to virtues ethics. S >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> List: >>> >>> As the chief culprit for the recent glut of messages--apparently I was >>> the sender of more than one-third of the 200+ over the first 11 days of >>> February--I offer my sincere apology, and my promise to try to temper my >>> enthusiasm for the current discussion topics, or at least "pace myself" (as >>> the saying goes) in responding. Please do not hesitate to contact me >>> directly off-List if you think that I am getting out of hand again. >>> >>> I am replying in this thread only because I believe that the following >>> excerpt provides a direct answer to Stephen R.'s question about whether >>> Peirce classified Aristotle as a nominalist. >>> >>> CSP: Aristotle held that Matter and Form were the only elements of >>> experience. But he had an obscure conception of what he calls >>> *entelechy*, which I take to be a groping for the recognition of a >>> third element which I find clearly in experience. Indeed it is by far the >>> most overt of the three. It was this that caused Aristotle to overlook it >>> ... Aristotle, so far as he is a nominalist, and* he may, I think, be >>> described as a nominalist with vague intimations of realism*, endeavors >>> to express the universe in terms of Matter and Form alone ... It may be >>> remarked that if, as I hold, there are three categories, Form, Matter, and >>> Entelechy, then there will naturally be seven schools of philosophy; that >>> which recognizes Form alone, that which recognizes Form and Matter alone, >>> that which recognizes Matter alone (these being the three kinds of >>> nominalism); that which recognizes Matter and Entelechy alone; that which >>> recognizes Entelechy alone (which seems to me what a perfectly consistent >>> Hegelianism would be); that which recognizes Entelechy and Form alone (these >>> last three being the kinds of imperfect realism); and finally the true >>> philosophy which recognizes Form, Matter, and Entelechy. (NEM 4:294-295; c. >>> 1903?, emphasis added) >>> >>> >>> This is part of a lengthy passage where, as I have remarked in other >>> recent threads, Peirce explicitly associated Form with 1ns (quality or >>> suchness), Matter with 2ns (the subject of a fact), and Entelechy with 3ns >>> (that which brings together Matter and Form; i.e., Signs). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> 173. But fallibilism cannot be appreciated in anything like its true >>>> significancy until evolution has been considered. This is what the world >>>> has been most thinking of for the last forty years -- though old enough is >>>> the general idea itself. Aristotle's philosophy, that dominated the world >>>> for so many ages and still in great measure tyrannizes over the thoughts of >>>> butchers and bakers that never heard of him -- is but a metaphysical >>>> evolutionism. >>>> >>>> Peirce: CP 1.174 Cross-Ref:†† >>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting. Has anyone done a study of Peirce and Aristotle. In what >>>> did Peirce's alleged tyranny consist? This is in something I found in an >>>> old book I have but it is also in CP. Did classify Aristotle as a dualist >>>> or nominalist? Or more narrowly as here? >>>> >>>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 .
