John, List: Thanks for confirming that there are no specific examples to cite of Gary R. making the kinds of "blanket statements" of which he has been repeatedly and falsely accused. I sincerely hope that a retraction and an apology will be forthcoming accordingly.
JFS: Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to arrive at an overall interpretation of [his own] thought". No Peircean scholar or committee of scholars would attempt to do that. If Peirce himself couldn't do that, it's the height of hubris for anybody else to claim that they could. This is utter nonsense. *Many *Peircean scholars have attempted to do that, not out of hubris but out of a sincere (even humble) desire to learn from Peirce's writings and then help others do likewise. As I have said before, that is precisely why there is such a vast secondary literature--including books like Kelly A. Parker's *The Continuity of Peirce's Thought*, which was my own initial introduction to the subject matter. Its back cover explicitly calls it "A comprehensive and systematic reconstruction of the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce--perhaps America's most far-ranging and original philosopher--that reveals the unity of his complex and influential body of thought." This is followed by two accompanying quotes. Joseph Brent: In spite of the difficult complexity of its subject, Kelly Parker's ambitious work is remarkably clear and readable and is indispensable for an understanding of the evolution of Peirce's thinking. Nathan Houser: I know of no better introduction to Pierce. Parker's book is the first to present Peirce's philosophy fully and systematically following Peirce's own system. This is a stimulating work that should engage even the most sophisticated Peirce scholar. These kinds of claims are not only unobjectionable, they are *routine *in mainstream philosophical scholarship. If no one could ever say anything *new *about Peirce, then no one would ever have much to say *at all* about Peirce. JFS: For my own writings, I have *never* seen any paraphrase--favorable or unfavorable--that I would consider accurate. Thanks for confirming that the attribution of such a sentiment to Peirce is nothing more than a projection of one's own feelings. Is it reasonable to expect others to *memorize *what we have written, and then do nothing more than repeat it back verbatim? On the contrary, if no readers can accurately restate it in *their own* words, then that strikes me as strong evidence of a complete failure by the author to communicate his/her ideas successfully. JFS: That is human charity, not mathematical charity. Who said anything about "mathematical charity"? Charity is charity, regardless of the context--putting the best construction on everything, and conscientiously exhibiting generosity of attitude. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:01 PM John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > Jon, et al. > > I just want to emphasize one point: It's extremely rare for anybody to > approve or be satisfied with anybody else's summary or paraphrase of what > they said or wrote. If it's highly favorable, they probably won't > complain. But even then, they realize that the paraphrase is not what they > themselves would have said. > > JAS> The debates are rarely about there being only one "right" > interpretation of only one particular passage, but rather whether and how > we can integrate different passages to arrive at an overall interpretation > of Peirce's thought, usually stated in our own words rather than his. > > No!!! Even Peirce could not "integrate different passages to arrive at an > overall interpretation of [his own] thought". No Peircean scholar or > committee of scholars would attempt to do that. If Peirce himself couldn't > do that, it's the height of hubris for anybody else to claim that they > could. > > Note: I am not complaining about what you write -- provided that you > state it as your own opinion. But I strongly object to any claim by > anybody that they could do what Peirce himself could never accomplish. > > JAS> John Sowa recently claimed > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2020-04/msg00118.html> that > "Peirce would cringe at most, if not all attempts to paraphrase his > thoughts," but offered no citation or quote to support this projection of > his own feelings onto Peirce. > > If you want to see people cringe at a paraphrase, just watch children > cringe when their parents try to repeat what they said on some previous > occasion. > > As for Peirce, I'll turn the question around. Can you find any > paraphrase that Peirce approved? Look at his reviews of writings by > William James or Ernst Schröder. Or note they way he introduced the word > 'pragmaticism'. > > For more examples in ordinary language, look at any email debates on any > list or blog on any subject: Few, if any people, fully agree with any > paraphrase of what they said. Sometimes, they might admit that the other > person made a clearer or better statement on the same topic. But an > improvement is not an exact paraphrase. > > For my own writings, I have *never* seen any paraphrase -- favorable or > unfavorable -- that I would consider accurate. Some of them are worse than > others. But even the favorable comments are not exact. > As for Peirce, his background and knowledge were unique. Even the best > Peircean scholars can't write a truly accurate paraphrase of anything he > wrote. I would never attempt to do that. > > But every mathematician, including Peirce, recognizes that mathematical > derivations are guaranteed to absolutely precise or completely false. If > anybody derives a conclusion from some proposition p in formal math or > logic, the original authors will accept any statement derived from p -- > *provided that* the derivation correctly follows the rules of inference for > that notation. > > In mathematics, every derivation is either exactly correct or exactly > false. There is no room for charity. But a good teacher can be charitable > by being sympathetic and helpful in showing students how to correct and > avoid mistakes. That is human charity, not mathematical charity. > > 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 .
