John, List: JFS: I have only one fundamental disagreement with Jon: his attempt to "harmonize and synthesize" Peirce. Nobody is qualified to harmonize and synthesize the views of anybody else, especially not someone whose views are as rich and complex as Peirce's. His views were evolving up to the end, and he could not harmonize them himself.
I have to wonder exactly what you mean by "harmonize and synthesize," since you find it so objectionable. As I have said before, Peirce would have been the first to acknowledge his own fallibility and the incompleteness of his own investigations. His prolific output over the course of decades surely contains numerous discrepancies and outright contradictions, often simply reflecting the fact that he changed his mind--sometimes in the midst of writing, resulting in alternate drafts. In such cases, each interpreter must choose which passages to embrace and which to reject, especially if the goal is to systematize Peirce's thought as a whole--as it is for me, in particular post-1900. The unpublished late manuscripts that I have been reading and quoting recently are quite helpful toward this end, shedding considerable light on the texts that are more familiar by virtue of appearing in CP, NEM, EP, etc. JFS: Jon has every right to state any opinion he likes. He can say that his opinions were inspired by Peirce. But he can't claim that Peirce would approve of any statement other than an exact quotation. Where have I ever made or implied such a claim? On the contrary, I have consistently presented my interpretations and provided supporting argumentation (including ample quotes) for each reader's consideration. JFS: Re Jon's note of June 7: I read it, saw some mistakes, but ignored them. But on June 14, you wrote that it was "a clear, complete yet extraordinarily succinct articulation..." I could not let that stand. This admission seems telling. Why not trust the List community to evaluate what I say for themselves? Again, when you believe that I am getting something wrong, you are welcome to make your case. JFS: In conclusion, I promise that I'll be kinder and gentler in stating my corrections to Jon's mistakes. This presupposes that you are the authority on what is correct and what is a mistake. I will charitably assume you meant that you will be kinder and gentler in expressing your disagreements with my posts. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:16 AM John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Gary R, > > As the moderator, you have a responsibility to be fair to all > parties in any debate. But you frequently take Jon's side, > while ignoring or even belittling the points raised by other > parties to the discussion. > > GR > > I would appreciate it if you would read Joseph Ransdell's > > "How the Forum Works." > > I subscribed to Peirce-L in the 1990s, when Joe was running the > show, but I switched my email provider a few years later and lost > the connection. Joe would often correct people who made mistakes. > When I made a mistake, I appreciated the correction. I strongly > agree with the policy stated on the web site: > > > It is expected that criticism will be vigorous and diligently > > pursued: philosophy is understood here to be essentially a > > critically directed and self-controlled conversation. > > GR > > I thoroughly disagree with your critique of Jon's approach to > > inquiry, so thoroughly that I have nothing more to add except > > that I disagree with you in your continuous critique of his > > approach > > I have only one fundamental disagreement with Jon: his attempt to > "harmonize and synthesize" Peirce. Nobody is qualified to harmonize > and synthesize the views of anybody else, especially not someone > whose views are as rich and complex as Peirce's. His views were > evolving up to the end, and he could not harmonize them himself. > > Jon has every right to state any opinion he likes. He can say that > his opinions were inspired by Peirce. But he can't claim that Peirce > would approve of any statement other than an exact quotation. > > Re Jon's note of June 7: I read it, saw some mistakes, but ignored > them. But on June 14, you wrote that it was "a clear, complete > yet extraordinarily succinct articulation..." I could not let that > stand. I won't repeat the whole exchange, but see below for four > excerpts: (1) Jon's note of June 7, (2) my reply to you on June 16, > (3) Jon's reply on the same day, and (4) my reply later that day. > > GR > > such absurdities as John Sowa's commenting that "These two sources > > show that Peirce's thoughts had no overlap with anything Jon was > > writing about." > > That sentence is taken out of context. See the final sentence by > Peirce in the paragraph from R 280: "The Graphist must be regarded > as corresponding to the “Plastic Nature” of Cudworth, or else to the > Artifex of Nature." > > When Peirce cites sources, it's important to check the sources to > see what he was talking about. I googled those two terms to see > how Peirce regarded the Graphist. I found two Wikipedia articles > that explained those terms, and I included the URLs at the end of > the final excerpt below. > > Before claiming that my statement is absurd, you have an obligation > to click on those two URLs. If you do, you'll find that Peirce was > not thinking about the issues in the way that Jon implied. > > In conclusion, I promise that I'll be kinder and gentler in stating > my corrections to Jon's mistakes. But I hope that you would also > be more considerate in your role as moderator. > > 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 .
