Mary, List, This appeared on my Facebook page (Charles S. Peirce Society) shortly after I read your message today and I thought you might find it of interest:
The question being responded to below was, why did Peirce's "theory of semiotics . . . go unnoticed in James's radical empiricism"? Eric Tate wrote: probably the reason it goes 'unnoticed', or more likely ignored, by James. James was a brilliant guy but had no patience for what he saw as the pedantry of logical study, and Peirce described him as exhibiting an "almost unexampled incapacity for mathematical thought, combined with intense hatred for logic". Peirce's Semeiotic is a naturalistic theory of mind, so is much more broadly applicable than Saussurean Semiology. Peirce's complex, sign-based theory of logical inference led him to distance his 'pragmaticism' from what he saw as the vulgar kind of verificationism he saw James' and other pragmatists' theories veering toward. And in the same thread, Aaron Wilson commented: As far as I remember, I don’t think James makes any distinctions like between the immediate object and the dynamical object, or between various types of interpretants. Best, Gary "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 12:08 PM Mary Libertin <mary.liber...@gmail.com> wrote: > John and list, > > You wrote: "Peirce's ethics of terminology is important. But he made an > important distinction: If an author's term is adopted and used by other > authors, then the person who coined that term has an obligation to continue > using it in the same sense in which it is being used. But if nobody else > is using the term, the original author is free to revise or replace it.” > > One glaring exception is Peirce’s change from the word “pragmatism” to the > word “pragmaticism.” It came after FCS Schiller, not the musician, warped > the meaning in his collection of essays on pragmatism that he titled > “humanism.” In that collection he relegated Peirce to a footnote but > attacked him ad hominin. > > Except for this, I’ll stay out this interesting discussion on terminology. > > Mary Libertin > Professor Emerita of English > Shippensburg University > > On May 3, 2020, at 11:35 AM, John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > Gary R and Jon AS, > > Peirce's ethics of terminology is important. But he made an important > distinction: If an author's term is adopted and used by other authors, > then the person who coined that term has an obligation to continue using it > in the same sense in which it is being used. But if nobody else is using > the term, the original author is free to revise or replace it. > > In the half century of his writings, the meanings of many of his terms > evolved, and he sometimes changed his terminology without stating exactly > how the new terms were related to the old ones. Since most of his MSS were > not intended for publication, he was under no obligation to preserve the > terms. > > CSP as quoted by JAS: "a general agreement concerning the use of terms and > of notations,--not too rigid, yet prevailing with most of the co-workers in > regard to most of the symbols, to such a degree that there shall be some > small number of different systems of expression that have to be mastered" > (CP 2.220, EP 2:263). > > GR> I couldn't agree more; it is my view as well. > > Yes, I would also agree. But note the qualifications: (1) "prevailing > with most of the co-workers", and (2) "there shall be some small number of > different systems of expression that have to be mastered". > > After 1903, when it became obvious that Russell's terminology for logic > was becoming more widely used, he avoided some of the terms in his earlier > publications, and he adopted some of the terms that were becoming more > widely used. > > When we're writing textual criticism of Peirce's writings, it's essential > to preserve the exact terms that occur in each quoted passage. But when > we're writing for a 21st. audience, we're obligated to consider what is > "prevailing with most of the co-workers". > > But there is much more to say about these issues. > > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
