Matt, list: See my responses below. There's nothing contradictory
about my posts!
On Fri 03/08/18 7:01 PM , Matt Faunce matthewjohnfau...@gmail.com
sent:
John, Edwina, Gary F., and List,
On Aug 2, 2018, at 3:18 PM, John F Sowa 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.
EDWINA; The insult is derived from the wording of 'see that you now
acknowledge the reality of truth'. This phrasing is similar to the
infamous question of :'Have you stopped beating your wife' - which is
a petitio principii or begging the question fallacy where it is
assumed without evidence that the man IS and HAS BEEN beating his
wife. Equally - the above reference to 'now acknowledge the reality
of truth' assumes that I previously denied the reality of
truth.-...this is false.
I outline, in your first example - my view that finding or arriving
at the final truth of the meaning of Peirce's work is impossible. As
Peirce himself said, absolute precision is impossible - and this
refers to Peirce's philosophy - which is 'relative to the mind'
rather than to the natural world. Peirce himself referred to this
'invariable vagueness' in 'Issues in Pragmatism, 1905. [See also
Phyllis Chaisson, Peirce's Logic of Vagueness'. in Commens: digital
companion to C.S.Peirce
But the second example you provide of my comments doesn't nullify or
contradict the first example. I am saying that absolute or final truth
does exist - and in my first example, I said that such could validly
be reached " within mathematics, pure logic or the natural laws of
physics and chemistry - and even these realms must be open to
questions.". So what CAN we arrive at within the non-scientific
purely intellectual world? Clarity. But never absolute final truth.
As Peirce noted: "It appears then, that the rule for attaining the
third grade of clearness of apprehension is as follows: Consider what
effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive
the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these
effects is the whole of our conception of the object". 5.402. ..and
this clarity is a collective effort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below are Edwina's two seemingly contradictory statements.
On Aug 1, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky 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 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
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'s...@bestweb.net\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
