Edwina, John, List: I do not agree with a linear view of Peirce, either, and strongly concur that one must take his entire vast corpus into account. What I have said is that I generally assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that his later writings reflect his *more considered* views--rarely (if ever) *contradicting* his earlier writings, but typically seeking to *clarify* them after further contemplation and refinement.
Peirce considered his inkstand to be an extension of his mind (CP 7.366, 1902), and I interpret many of his manuscripts accordingly--as documentation of his ongoing thought process, not finished products that always merit equal weight with whatever came subsequently or actually appeared in print during his lifetime. I can very much relate to such a method myself; as the variously attributed saying goes, "I write to find out what I think," both on the List and elsewhere. My posts this week express opinions that have evolved considerably from those that I held two or three years ago, but the latter would still provide insight into how I arrived at my current positions. I readily admit to focusing a lot on terminology, as Peirce himself did, since in some ways it is a specific object of study for semeiotic as a distinct science. However, I also acknowledge as he did the importance of applying the results in *other* sciences--including not only metaphysics as the third branch of philosophy, which I have discussed extensively, but also the special sciences such as biology and sociology, which are *not *areas in which I have much personal interest or expertise. Nevertheless, if one does not correctly *apprehend *Peirce's views on phenomenology, normative sciences (including logic as semeiotic), and metaphysics, then one obviously will not be able to *apply *them properly in the special sciences. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:59 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS - as usual, you and I, each in our personal opinions of Peirce, have > great differences. > > I don't agree with a linear view of Peirce [early->late]; I think one has > to take his whole works into consideration, for even if he was saying > things in a different fashion, using different terms, and working his > analysis out in more detail - I think that Peirce was very consistent in > his basic approach. > > Your focus seems to be on terminology;; on terms having a > specific meaning, which you understand as increasingly clarified and > 'accurate' as Peirce grows older; and you tend to refrain from > examining the functions of these terms in the real world. My focus is the > pragmatic use of Peircean semiosis to explain the biological and societal > realms. > > I gave my outline of the function of the Final Interpretant in enabling > the adaptive capacity of habits. As for 'ultimate truth' - this is an > entirely different function than an 'adaptive capacity of habits' - > and refers to the scientific method of examining and analyzing objective > reality. Nothing to do with the nature of habits, with adaptation, with > generalization etc. > > So- we'll have to continue, each in our personal way, to disagree. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
