John, Edwina, Gary F., and List, > On Aug 2, 2018, at 3:18 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > EX 2 >> I’m glad to see that you now acknowledge the reality of truth. > > This is a gratuitous insult. Various subscribers to Peirce-L > may quibble about the criteria in different circumstances, but > I'm sure that all of them distinguish T and F.
Below are Edwina's two seemingly contradictory statements. On Aug 1, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: >>> John, list >>> And from your post - I conclude that not merely 'absolute precision' is >>> impossible, but by that notion, absolute truth is impossible since >>> 'continuous variation subsists'. ..which means - no final Truth. >>> >>> Therefore - the agenda of some to find the ultimate or final truth of the >>> meaning of Peirce's work which will then stand as The Final Word On Peirce >>> - is not possible. Such ultimate finality seems to me to occur only within >>> mathematics, pure logic or the natural laws of physics and chemistry - and >>> even these realms must be open to questions. Other explorations in 'what is >>> reality' - which includes the complex semiosis of Peirce within his >>> examination of the triad and the categories are subject to that fact that >>> 'absolute precision is impossible'. >>> >>> This doesn't mean relativism; it doesn't mean nominalism; it means instead >>> that our 'intellectual conceptions' must be offered as open >>> interpretations by one person, open to questions and different views and >>> not defined as 'the truth'. >>> >>> Edwina >>> On Aug 2, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: >>> Gary F, list >>> >>> The issue is NOT whether or not 'the truth' exists as a reality. We can all >>> acknowledge that there IS such a final stage. Such an acknowledgment >>> therefore denies relativism and nominalism - which rejects the reality of >>> truth - and equally, denies the reality of falseness. >>> >>> And this same acknowledgment of a final Truth also necessarily acknowledges >>> that objective reality exists regardless of what anyone thinks or says >>> about it. […] >>> Edwina, perhaps there's something, for those of us who have a hard time rectifying what appears prima facie as contradictory, to learn by an explanation of their compatibility. I've wrestled with the import of logic being ultimately grounded in esthetics in light of the question of how much deviation of esthetic sense is allowed from one person to another especially in different eras. Perhaps there's a point in that problem to be addressed. Perhaps these two meanings of 'truth' were not clearly separated in the conversation, whether by the sender or receiver: (1) truth as a fully encapsulated description of the object, or (1.5) truth as a description encapsulated within a certain understood perimeter, e.g., the perimeter might surround what is practical in general, or surround what is practical to the matter at hand, and (2) truth as the universal alethic value of a specific proposition (however precise or vague the proposition is). You capitalized the T of 'truth' sometimes: what does that mean? When you said "[the] final truth of the meaning of Peirce's work", does that 'truth' used according to (1) or (1.5) above? Did Peirce ever use the term 'truth, in that sense? (I don't remember, but I'd have to check.) Matt
----------------------------- 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 .
