BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list:
ET: Essentially, then, pragmatism/icism is the abductive
examination of Thirdness, or, hypotheses about the laws governing
observable instantiations. And it is rooted in percepts, in the
actual observable world, grounded in the acknowledgment of the
reality of laws [3ns] ...
JAS: Percepts are the subject matter of Phaneroscopy, while Reality
is itself one of those very hypotheses that we develop to explain
what we observe, which then serves as the subject matter of
Metaphysics.---------------------------------------------------------ET:
I absolutely will NOT get into terminology and definitions that
declare that 'this word' refers only to 'that action'. That sidelines
and distorts the whole action of cognition and semiosic analysis.
Edwina
On Mon 18/02/19 11:32 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
It sounds to me like we are generally in agreement.
JAS: As I have said repeatedly in defense of our terminological
discussions here, the goal is always to make our (and Peirce's) ideas
clear; but that is not an end in itself --it is simply an
indispensable step toward developing applications of those ideas in
the sciences that are below normative Logic as Semeiotic in Peirce's
classification, beginning with Metaphysics and then encompassing all
of the Special Sciences.
I do have one quibble to raise, though.
ET: Essentially, then, pragmatism/icism is the abductive
examination of Thirdness, or, hypotheses about the laws governing
observable instantiations. And it is rooted in percepts, in the
actual observable world, grounded in the acknowledgment of the
reality of laws [3ns] ...
Percepts are the subject matter of Phaneroscopy, while Reality is
itself one of those very hypotheses that we develop to explain what
we observe, which then serves as the subject matter of Metaphysics.
CSP: What is reality? Perhaps there isn't any such thing at all. As
I have repeatedly insisted, it is but a retroduction, a working
hypothesis which we try, our one desperate forlorn hope of knowing
anything. (NEM 4:343; 1898)
Normative Logic as Semeiotic--including pragmaticism--comes in
between those two other cenoscopic sciences, and enables us to
ascertain the truth or falsity of the Propositions that we formulate
(Retroduction), explicate (Deduction), and evaluate (Induction) after
examining our Percepts--a judgment that is ultimately based on whether
or not they are consistent with the subsequent Experience that is
forced upon us. The goal is always "the stable establishment of
beliefs" (CP 3.429; 1896, emphasis added), which are precisely habits
of feeling, action, and thought.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:34 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
In my view, terminological 'definitions' do not 'make our ideas
clear'. And pragmatism has nothing to do with definitions.
JAS wrote: "According to Peirce, it [note: pragmatism] is "merely
a method of ascertaining the meanings of hard words and of abstract
concepts" (CP 5.464, EP 2:400; 1907).
1] If we are going to cherry-pick quotes, something I feel is a
misuse of Peirce, then, I can come up with "Now quite the most
striking feature of the new theory was its recognition of an
inseparable connection between rational cognition and rational
purpose; and that consideration it was which determined the
preference for the name 'pragmatism' 5.412
And in 5.196, 'pragmatism' "is nothing else than the question of the
logic of abduction. that is, pragmatism proposes a certain maxim
which, if sound, must render needless any further rule as to the
admissibility of hypotheses to rank as hypotheses, that is to say, as
explanations of phenomena"
ET: I understand the above to mean that pragmatism is focused on
developing hypotheses about the laws/rules governing observed
phenomena
2] "There are two functions which we may properly require that
Pragmatism should perform...Namely it ought, in the first place, to
give us an expeditious riddance of all ideas essentially unclear. In
the second place, it ought to lend support, and help to render
distinct, ideas essentially clear, but more or less difficult of
apprehensions; and in in particular, it ought to take a satisfactory
attitude toward the element of thirdness" 5.206
ET: Essentially, then, pragmatism/icism is the abductive examination
of Thirdness, or, hypotheses about the laws governing observable
instantiations. And it is rooted in percepts, in the actual
observable world, grounded in the acknowledgment of the reality of
laws [3ns] - such that Peirce could even refer to it as 'a species of
prope-positivism' [5.423.
And "Pragmatism does not intend to define the phenomenal equivalents
of words and general ideas, but, on the contrary, eliminates their
sential element, and endeavors to define the rational purpose, and
this it finds in the purposive bearing of the word or proposition in
question" 5.428.
By this - I understand that the definition of the WORD is not the
point; the FUNCTION [purposive bearing] of the semiosic action and
examining the reality of 3ns in this function - that's pragmatism.
3] As he wrote, "Nothing new can ever be learned by analyzing
definitions" [5.393]. Now, Peirce continues on, with "Nevertheless,
our existing beliefs can be set in order by this process".
My view of the above is the limited scope of definitions, for they
fail to provide us with the real focus of thought -which is the
examination of the nature of Thirdness in the reality around us.
4] As Peirce writes, "the whole function of thought is to produce
habits of action" [5.400] and thought is therefore focused on
discerning and analyzing these 'habits of action' [Thirdness].
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[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 .
