To, specifically, John, JAS, Gary R, Edwina,
Please stop. Does anyone think this continued harangue is either: 1)
attracting new individuals to be interested in Peirce?; or 2) resolving
anything? I wish I knew where there was a forum, as I first encountered
years ago with this list, where I
John, List:
Thanks for confirming that there are no specific examples to cite of Gary
R. making the kinds of "blanket statements" of which he has been repeatedly
and falsely accused. I sincerely hope that a retraction and an apology
will be forthcoming accordingly.
JFS: Even Peirce could not
Jon, et al.
I just want to emphasize one point: It's extremely
rare for anybody to approve or be satisfied with anybody else's summary or
paraphrase of what they said or wrote. If it's highly favorable, they
probably won't complain. But even then, they realize that the paraphrase
is not what
Dear list,
Thank you for this great demonstration of ‘*charity*’.
We have shown ourselves to be a learned person who can define a concept
perfectly.
For who can’t recognize an example when it’s on the table in front of them?
Best,
Jerry R
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:32 PM Edwina Taborsky
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
JAS - and this is getting ridiculous. But - you who openly
self-defines yourself as very particular about exact references -
'selected' from what I wrote - which thereby changed the meaning -
and declared that I wrote:
Edwina, List:
ET: You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it.
Another pot is calling another kettle black, except that I provided links
to the specific posts that I quoted so that others could see the complete
contexts for themselves. That is precisely why I
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
1] You write - 'thanks for acknowledging this '- as if I ever
rejected such a view!
2] Yes - I know that you reject my view of the Sign as a triad -
made up of the O-R-I. As to who is more accurate
John, List:
JFS: For these reasons, what triggered this thread is not what Jon wrote,
but what Gary R wrote ... But when he made a blanket statement about my
competence,that was out of bounds.
Again, where did Gary R. make any such "blanket statement"? Please provide
a quotation, preferably
Edwina, List:
ET: I think that evaluation of interpretations of Peirce is both valid and
necessary- and yes -it has to be asserted that some are more valid and
accurate and truthful than others.
Thanks for acknowledging this. As an example, in my view it is an invalid
and inaccurate
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
You are misinterpreting what I said and writing misleading comments
about it.
I didn't say that I was against theory: What I said was that I was
against their isolation from the real world. You
Michael, List:
MM: I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a
result, on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method. Also that a
similar situation has recurred before.
John Sowa and I have had fundamental disagreements about methodology for
well over a year now,
John, List:
JFS: The principle of charity in philosophy does *not* require the
listener/reader to assume that the statements by the speaker/author are
true.
Where have I claimed otherwise? Specific examples, please.
JFS: For the arguments I objected to, I showed that a charitable
Jon, Michael, Edwina, Robert M, and Gary R,
Peirce's range of
interests, talents, and research was so broad that there is no single best
method for studying and interpreting his writings. For different aspects
of his work, some methods are better than others. But even for those
areas where
Cf: Peirce's Categories • 20
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/05/14/peirces-categories-%e2%80%a2-20/
Peircers,
Understanding another person's thought can be difficult. Understanding the way another understands a third person's
thought, all the more so, even if that third person is not
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Michael - thanks again for your comments, but I feel that on this
list, there is indeed a Wimbledon atmosphere.
That is - the view seems to be that there are valid/correct/true
interpretations of Peirce - and
John, Gary,
I get from your account here that you had a specific critique of a
result, on one occasion, of Jon's applying of his method. Also that a
similar situation has recurred before. But that doesn't mean that there
is a flaw in his overall method per se.
I'm inferring this from
16 matches
Mail list logo
