Dan, List, All: DE: But a pragmaticistic debate needs to have more examples from real data, more rubber meets the road kind of thing.
Sure, but what properly counts as "real data" in this context depends on which of these two questions we are primarily trying to answer. 1. What is the truth of the matter? 2. What was Peirce's view of the matter? When we are trying to leverage Peirce's insights in an effort to answer #1, we must first answer #2 accurately, and his own voluminous writings are where the "rubber meets the road" in that inquiry. One more time, someone who declines to be scrupulously faithful to Peirce's own concepts and terminology will be off the mark when attempting to apply them in other domains. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:47 PM Dan Everett <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > Good observations. Of course, I realize the difference there between > firstness and secondness. But always useful to be more explicit. The point > is that many languages, and some more than others, encode phenomenological > categories directly in their languages. > > The Russian examples illustrate the linguistic concept of Aktionsart. All > languages (because of the real world) use different verb forms to represent > different types of event classification. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_aspect > > This is also in a sense an aspect of phenomenology. > > So my point is that it is more interesting to find empirical support for > Peirce’s ideas than to worry excessively about slight differences in > meaning. This is a form of essentialism which is an unproductive route of > inquiry. Being clear about what Peirce said is of course important. But > after a certain point he was not sure himself and he worked hard to find > empirical data to support what he was saying. Arguing back and forth about > chapter and verse reminds me of the kinds of theological debates I am happy > to have put behind me. > > I don’t mind so much, because I always learn something. But a > pragmaticistic debate needs to have more examples from real data, more > rubber meets the road kind of thing. (Or, it could also be mathematical > proofs depending on the area of debate) > > Peirce was after all a superb field researcher. Photometric researches for > example brings math, the three -ductions and field research together > nicely. > > Dan >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
