Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sham Reasoning - Is Ethics Possible?
I have generally assumed that decency is verifiable by looking at a decent action or statement and having some basis for judging. I wish science was simply assumed as a reasonable approach to evaluating all behavior. Ethics and aesthetics are part of science I assume. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Stephen, list > > Exactly. I note also in 1.55, "all probable reasoning is despised. > ...There is no room for doubt, which can only paralyze action. But the > scientific spirit requires a man to be at all times ready to dump his whole > cartload of beliefs, the moment experience is against them" > > But what if the issue is instead, one of interpretation, rather than > a search for the natural laws of science? That is, if we are engaged in the > study of history, of philosophy - I'm not sure that there is a > final 'truthful interpretation'. I think there is a consensual > interpretation, such that we can for example, differentiate the basic > axioms of Plato and Aristotle - but, I'm puzzled about 'the truth' in such > areas. > > > Edwina > > > > On Sat 04/08/18 11:02 AM , Stephen Curtiss Rose stever...@gmail.com sent: > > Peirce: CP 1.57 Cross-Ref:†† > > 57. When men begin to rationalize about their conduct, the > first effect is to deliver them over to their passions and produce the most > frightful demoralization, especially in sexual matters. Thus, among the > Greeks, it brought about pæderasty and a precedence of public women over > private wives. But ultimately the subconscious part of the soul, being > stronger, regains its predominance and insists on setting matters right. > Men, then, continue to tell themselves they regulate their conduct by > reason; but they learn to look forward and see what conclusions a given > method will lead to before they give their adhesion to it. In short, it is > no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but > it is the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be. This is > sham reasoning. In short, as morality supposes self-control, men learn that > they must not surrender themselves unreservedly to any method, without > considering to what conclusions it will lead them. But this is utterly > contrary to the single-mindedness that is requisite in science. In order > that science may be successful, its votaries must hasten to surrender > themselves at discretion to experimental inquiry, in advance of knowing > what its decisions may be. There must be no reservations. > > Peirce: CP 1.58 Cross-Ref:†† > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > > - 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 .
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sham Reasoning - Is Ethics Possible?
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen, list
Exactly. I note also in 1.55, "all probable reasoning is despised.
...There is no room for doubt, which can only paralyze action. But
the scientific spirit requires a man to be at all times ready to dump
his whole cartload of beliefs, the moment experience is against them"
But what if the issue is instead, one of interpretation, rather than
a search for the natural laws of science? That is, if we are engaged
in the study of history, of philosophy - I'm not sure that there is a
final 'truthful interpretation'. I think there is a consensual
interpretation, such that we can for example, differentiate the basic
axioms of Plato and Aristotle - but, I'm puzzled about 'the truth' in
such areas.
Edwina
On Sat 04/08/18 11:02 AM , Stephen Curtiss Rose stever...@gmail.com
sent:
Peirce: CP 1.57 Cross-Ref:††
57. When men begin to rationalize about their
conduct, the first effect is to deliver them over to their passions
and produce the most frightful demoralization, especially in sexual
matters. Thus, among the Greeks, it brought about pæderasty and a
precedence of public women over private wives. But ultimately the
subconscious part of the soul, being stronger, regains its
predominance and insists on setting matters right. Men, then,
continue to tell themselves they regulate their conduct by reason;
but they learn to look forward and see what conclusions a given
method will lead to before they give their adhesion to it. In short,
it is no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion
shall be, but it is the conclusion which determines what the
reasoning shall be. This is sham reasoning. In short, as morality
supposes self-control, men learn that they must not surrender
themselves unreservedly to any method, without considering to what
conclusions it will lead them. But this is utterly contrary to the
single-mindedness that is requisite in science. In order that science
may be successful, its votaries must hasten to surrender themselves at
discretion to experimental inquiry, in advance of knowing what its
decisions may be. There must be no reservations.
Peirce: CP 1.58 Cross-Ref:††
amazon.com/author/stephenrose [1]
Links:
--
[1] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose
-
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] Sham Reasoning - Is Ethics Possible?
Peirce: CP 1.57 Cross-Ref:†† 57. When men begin to rationalize about their conduct, the first effect is to deliver them over to their passions and produce the most frightful demoralization, especially in sexual matters. Thus, among the Greeks, it brought about pæderasty and a precedence of public women over private wives. But ultimately the subconscious part of the soul, being stronger, regains its predominance and insists on setting matters right. Men, then, continue to tell themselves they regulate their conduct by reason; but they learn to look forward and see what conclusions a given method will lead to before they give their adhesion to it. In short, it is no longer the reasoning which determines what the conclusion shall be, but it is the conclusion which determines what the reasoning shall be. This is sham reasoning. In short, as morality supposes self-control, men learn that they must not surrender themselves unreservedly to any method, without considering to what conclusions it will lead them. But this is utterly contrary to the single-mindedness that is requisite in science. In order that science may be successful, its votaries must hasten to surrender themselves at discretion to experimental inquiry, in advance of knowing what its decisions may be. There must be no reservations. Peirce: CP 1.58 Cross-Ref:†† amazon.com/author/stephenrose - 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 .
