Dan, list,
Thank you for underscoring method. With regard to method (light of the pragmatic maxim), Peirce gave us different statements of the maxim, even saying of one that it is in the form of a philosophical theorem and that he has succeeded no better than that. I also recall some other philosopher saying that there would be need of *habituation* to see the things higher up, so as to distinguish such from appearances. And this is necessary because the transition for us would be rough. Given this, then, to which statement were you referring when you said: I simply mean to underscore method. Not who might be correct on the terminology. I always learn from these discussions. For I see method here being applied but if we were to judge them by their fruits, as members say we do, then the fruits have so far, been rotten. Moreover, when you call for underscoring of method, I interpret that as saying, ‘let us consciously adopt the method’. If, on the other hand, you say that any one of his different statements of his ‘maxim of logic’ will serve just as well as any other, then that surely would affirm Peirce as a perfect ignoramus when it comes to esthetics. And of course he is, for does he not say so? Several times over, even? With best wishes, Jerry R In order to be admitted to better philosophical standing I have endeavored to put pragmatism as I understand it into the same form of a philosophical theorem. I have not succeeded any better than this: On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 2:38 AM Daniel L Everett <danleveret...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon > > I simply mean to underscore method. > > Not who might be correct on the terminology. > > I always learn from these discussions. > > Thanks > > Dan > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 1, 2019, at 21:44, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dan, List: > > Where has anyone on the List engaged in "ad hominem arguments (based on a > person's worth or unworth in a given subject)"? > > Our terminological disputes typically pertain to *Peirce's *usage, so the > "experiment" by which they can be resolved is careful examination of the > "data," which consists of the relevant texts in his writings. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:42 PM Dan Everett <danleveret...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I agree with Edwina on ad hominem arguments (based on a person’s worth or >> unworth in a given subject). But as I have said before here, one must be >> able to distinguish interpretations based on their practical results. All >> terms have to be interpreted in light of the pragmatic maxim. Straying away >> from that moves into Popperian concerns about essentialism, which is >> usually pointless. >> >> A terminological dispute that cannot be resolved via an experiment or via >> some other form of data is of lesser importance. >> >> Dan >> > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
