John, List: JFS: I am not condescending. I'm treating you as a bright student who has a lot to learn about logic, linguistics, lexicography, and the kind of detailed textual analysis that Peirce did all his life. I'm willing to help, but you must do your homework.
Apparently you are unaware of the condescension that pervades these very statements. I am not *your *student, and we are *both *students of Peirce. I welcome sincere disagreement and spirited discussion--I learn a tremendous amount from it, and sometimes change my mind as a result of it--but I am not willing to accept someone else's dogmatic pronouncements as if they were beyond questioning. That would be blocking the way of (my own) inquiry, embracing the method of authority rather than the method of science. JFS: But don't claim that what you write is consistent with what Peirce said. I have every right to make that claim, and I consistently quote Peirce's own writings to back it up--as much as or more than anyone else on the List these days, including excerpts from unpublished manuscripts that I have transcribed myself from his own hand. That way, those reading along can decide for themselves whether and how well my comments match up with his original text, rather than taking my (or your) word for it. Since he did not provide us with a single unified work that systematically presents all of his insights, we instead have to piece them together from scattered fragments--and sometimes that process produces surprises, forcing us to reconsider views that we previously considered to be settled. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:30 PM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 2/25/2019 9:04 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > Why not just accept the fact (as I have) that we are pursuing different > > purposes, and therefore adopting different approaches accordingly? Why > > insist that I /must /adhere to /your /analysis of propositions and /your > > /preference for unmodified EGs? > > Because Peirce was very precise in what he wrote, and he had > no sympathy with people who misrepresented what he was saying. > > If you just want to develop your own ideas, I have no objection. > But I do object to claims like the following: > > > It is perfectly consistent with what Peirce wrote > > in NEM 3:885-886--as well as ... > > Just quoting a bunch of words and saying X is consistent with Y > is the loosest of loose thinking. It's even worse when you add > the word 'perfectly'. > > No linguist, lexicographer, or logician would ever say that. > Peirce had a solid foundation in all those areas, and he used > those skills in everything he wrote. He would never say > "This cloud of words is consistent with that cloud." > > I am not condescending. I'm treating you as a bright student > who has a lot to learn about logic, linguistics, lexicography, > and the kind of detailed textual analysis that Peirce did all > his life. I'm willing to help, but you must do your homework. > > If you don't want to do the really hard work of learning how > to analyze every last detail, just go your own way. But don't > claim that what you write is consistent with what Peirce said. > > 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 .
