Read a paper the other day which I really enjoyed and wanted to share the reference here:
*Danielle Macbeth, "Varieties of Analytic Pragmatism", Philosophia 40 (1):27-39.* *http://philpapers.org/rec/MACVOA* Basically Macbeth dissects the version of pragmatism put forward by Robert Brandom in his recent John Locke lectures, and argues that what he is doing with logical diagrams is not at all what Kant and Peirce were doing. Previously she had mainly worked on logical diagrams in Frege, so I'm interested that she is turning to Peirce. Anyway here is the official abstract: "In his Locke Lectures Brandom proposes to extend what he calls the project of analysis to encompass various relationships between meaning and use. As the traditional project of analysis sought to clarify various logical relations between vocabularies so Brandom’s extended project seeks to clarify various pragmatically mediated semantic relations between vocabularies. The point of the exercise in both cases is to achieve what Brandom thinks of as algebraic understanding. Because the pragmatist critique of the traditional project of analysis was precisely to deny that such understanding is appropriate to the case of natural language, the very idea of an analytic pragmatism is called into question by that critique. My aim is to clarify the prospects for Brandom’s project, or at least something in the vicinity of that project, through a comparison of it with what I will suggest we can think of as Kant’s analytic pragmatism as developed by Peirce." Cheers, Cathy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to [email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
