Dear list:
I thought the point of pragmaticism was simply to make meanings clear.
“Now there are *three grades of clearness in our apprehensions of the
meanings* of words.
The first consists in the connexion of the word with familiar experience…
The second grade consists in the abstract
This from Robert B. Talisse at http://www.nordprag.org/nsp/1/Talisse.pdf
may be germane.
Hence the Peircean can offer what the
Deweyan cannot, namely, a substantive conception of democracy that is
consistent with a due appreciation of the reasonable pluralism of
comprehensive
moral ideals. But tha
Stefan, Edwina, Mike, List,
While I think that there is a most interesting and even important
discussion adumbrated in these recent exchanges (I too would tend to
disagree with Edwina's views, Stefan, as she wrote that she thought I might
when she kindly sent me the draft of her slide presentation
Stefan - I am not making 'big claims on the agora'.
I posted my concerns on a specific and limited list, the Peirce List, about a
proposed discussion topic on democracy as outlined by Dewey and Peirce. My
concerns about Dewey were that his outline of a political system separated it
completely
List,
I was imprecise in my use of the qualifier "all" in my
statement, "In the end, it is all wrong." The correct qualifier
that I meant to say is "partially". And, by "partially" I also
do not mean to imply that I personally know or believe what
port
Stefan - again, your CHOICE of assuming I have no proof, because I refuse to
start up a discussion of these issues on a site devoted to Peirce, is just your
own illogical and non-empirical opinion.
That's right - I provided the conclusions of these theories - again, because
this site is not for
That's right, Stefan! It's a Peirce list - and I, and you, have no right to
take it over for a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with Peirce. I
suggested going off-line but you, yourself, chose to keep it online and in
addition, to insult and sneer at me. That was your choice.
Edwina
Mike,
Peirce would't approve that "last snide tone" if i would bar the road of
inquiry. I don't do that. I just want somebody who makes big claims
about how the social world works to back up her claims empirically. To
discuss such complex things At least a clear theoretical outline of
hypothe
