Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Dear list: I found this article that clarifies the position Peirce would take. Well, if you take this in context of *Man's Glassy Essence* and *The Logic of Relatives:* “I look upon Mr. Peirce as an extreme nominalist, or, if he prefers it, as a nominal realist soaked with nominalistic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Jon, Clark, List, Jon wrote: I agree; I think that Peirce would have the same distaste for rigid political ideologies--regardless of where they fall on the spectrum--that he clearly had for rigid theological dogmas, and for much the same reasons. I agree with Clark and Jon in this. Yes,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Clark, List: I agree; I think that Peirce would have the same distaste for rigid political ideologies--regardless of where they fall on the spectrum--that he clearly had for rigid theological dogmas, and for much the same reasons. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

> On Nov 28, 2016, at 2:57 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I prefer to find a value in the 'tension' between bottom-up and top-down > solutions which Clark hinted at. I'm not at all sure what Peirce's > preferences would be in this matter. As I said Peirce (especially

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Jon, Clark, List, For now just a quick response to a couple points Jon made. He wrote: Part of the challenge is that we all tend to spend most of our time in echo chambers where our own views are just obvious to everyone, and we cannot imagine how or why someone would see things differently. I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Gary R., List: GR: When, as in the USA, the federal government is unable, for example, over a long period of time to enact laws which clearly address what is rapidly coming to be seen by many of all political persuasions as a critical need for investment in the upgrading of the country's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

> On Nov 28, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > My first impression is that you may be on to something here, Clark, that > Peirce's understanding would tend toward a kind of federalism as needed to > ensure that no single hypothesis be adopted too quickly for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

> On Nov 28, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > That strikes me as a sensible application of Peirce's self-proclaimed > "sentimental conservatism" (CP 1.661). If "philosophical science" should be > allowed to "influence religion and morality ... only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Clark, Jon S, List, Clark wrote: It would seem that Peirce would be concerned about too strong a central government in that he wants to maximize inquiry and thus possible solutions to a problem rather than a single line of inquiry. This would mean a trust in federalism of a sort. A federalism

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Clark, List: That strikes me as a sensible application of Peirce's self-proclaimed "sentimental conservatism" (CP 1.661). If "philosophical science" should be allowed to "influence religion and morality ... only with secular slowness and the most conservative caution" (CP 1.620), then it seems

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

> On Nov 26, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Meanwhile, my own sense is that one possible strength of Peirce's theory lies > in his philosophical summum bonum, namely, the notion of our seeking the > 'reasonable in itself'. It follows that--and here one

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Topology, Differential Logic, Logical Graphs

Peircers, Let me see if I can get back in saddle on this topic, the dormitive virtues of tryptophan and a few pounds heavier notwithstanding. Recalling the context: ET:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2016-11/msg00081.html