Re: Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between
Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:09:12 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.science.philosophy.peirce,gmane.comp.inquiry |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CANBa87HrApU-Xc-qtJ8vxfp9TJ9cd4J8+YY3wX_bO+6gzcW6Tg@mail.gmail.com> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1484410157-7784-963 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c128cd0e01eb70546102bc0 --94eb2c128cd0e01eb70546102bc0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =E2=80=9COne important key to Dr. Carus=E2=80=99s opinions is the recogniti= on of the fact that, like many other philosophers, he is a nominalist tinctured with realistic opinions.=E2=80=9D ~Peirce =E2=80=9CI look upon Mr. Peirce as an extreme nominalist, or, if he prefers= it, as a nominal realist soaked with nominalistic opinions. He professes to be a realist, but he rescinds the foundation of realism.=E2=80=9D ~Carus "The famous dispute between Nominalists and Realists would never have been heard of, if, instead of transferring the Platonic Ideas into a crude Latin phraseology, the spirit of Plato had been truly understood and appreciated." ~Jowett, c.f., Lady Welby, *Meaning and Metaphor* "Rhetoric=E2=80=99s chief rival would now be sophistry. Socrates says as mu= ch in his account of rhetoric; but when Socrates says it again to Callicles, Callicles expresses nothing but loathing for sophistry. Callicles believes the chief rival to rhetoric is philosophy." ~Seth Benardete, *The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato=E2=80=99s = Gorgias and Phaedrus * Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon- I fully agree. I think the search for 'this' and 'only this' meaning > of a term slips into that essentialism of 'ontological absolutes'. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]> > To: "Arisbe List" <[email protected]>; "Inquiry List" <[email protected]= >; > "Peirce List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 10:15 AM > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and > Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between > > > > Peircers, >> >> We've been through the nominalism versus realism question so many times >> that >> I can't think of anything fresh to say about it. When the use of words >> like >> Universal, General, Continuous vs. Particular, Singular, Individual comes >> up >> I find it more useful to focus on the pragmatics of language use relative >> to >> the context of interpretation, frame of reference, sign relational space, >> or >> universe of discourse at hand than to go chasing after ontological >> absolutes. >> >> But I did find this previous comment on Houser on Forster on Peirce while >> I was looking for something else, and it reflects my sense that Peirceans >> have more trouble controlling that slippery slide toward what I've called >> =E2=80=9Cessentialism=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Contologism=E2=80=9D than they= do checking nominalistic drift. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon >> >> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-ess >> entialism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must >> -navigate-its-middle-way-between/ >> >> On 9/20/2012 6:10 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >> >>> Peirce Listers, >>> >>> Earlier this summer, Ay=C5=9Fe Mermutlu posted a notice of Nathan House= r's >>> review >>> of Paul Forster's "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism" on the Facebook >>> page >>> of the Charles S. Peirce Society and a brief discussion ensued. >>> >>> 1. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/ >>> 2. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nominalism/ >>> 3. http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/ >>> 147723215363679/ >>> >>> My initial comment was this -- >>> >>> JA: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis >>> that Pragmatism must navigate its middle way between. >>> >>> On being asked what I meant by "essentialism", >>> I glossed it as follows -- >>> >>> JA: This is idea that all phenomena are explained by absolute >>> (monadic, non-relative, or ontological) essences inhering >>> in objects, as opposed to any notion that some phenomena >>> can be explained only in terms of relations among objects. >>> For instance, in semiotics, essentialism leads to the idea >>> that signhood is a permanent essence inhering in something, >>> as a matter of its ontology, as opposed to a role that >>> something performs within the setting of a sign relation. >>> >>> On further interrogation, I added this -- >>> >>> JA: If nominalism is the doctrine that generals are only names and >>> only individuals have objective existence, then essentialism is >>> the doctrine that all names (logical terms) refer to properties >>> of individuals. So a term like =E2=80=9Cfather=E2=80=9D is only a = relative term >>> relative to the perspective of a non-omniscient being who cannot >>> see what individuals are destined to be fathers and what not. >>> >>> I think it's fair to say that most of the Peirce crew is handy enough >>> when it comes to steering clear of nominalism's rock-monster, but not >>> so well-drilled in navigating safely by essentialism's whirly places. >>> At any rate, I keep seeing a drift in that direction pulling the good >>> ship Pragmatism into the eddy of a most likely futile sea battle, and >>> I thought it incumbent on the duty of my watch to report what I see. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >> -- >> >> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > > >> ----------------------------- >> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce >> -l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > --94eb2c128cd0e01eb70546102bc0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"times new roman&quo= t;;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:ini= tial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:in= itial">=E2=80=9COne important key to Dr. Carus=E2=80=99s opinions is the recognition of the fact that, like many other philosophers, he is a nominalist tinctured with realistic opinions.=E2=80=9D ~Peirce<span></span>= </span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"times new roman&quo= t;;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:ini= tial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:in= itial"><span>=C2=A0</span></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:"times new roman&quo= t;">=E2=80=9CI look upon Mr. Peirce as an extreme nominalist, or, if he prefers it, as a nominal realist soaked with nominalistic opinions. He professes to be a realist, but he rescinds the foundation of realism.=E2=80= =9D ~Carus</span><span style=3D"font-family:"times new roman""><s= pan></span></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,102)">=C2=A0</span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,102)">"</span><spa= n style=3D"color:rgb(28,28,28);background-image:initial;background-position= :initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origi= n:initial;background-clip:initial;background-color:rgb(242,242,242)">The fa= mous dispute between Nominalists and Realists would never have been heard of, if, instead of transferring the Platonic Ideas into a crude Latin phraseology, = the spirit of Plato had been truly understood and appreciated." ~Jowett, c= .f., Lady Welby,=C2=A0<i>Meaning and Metaphor</i></span><span></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><i><span style=3D"color:rgb(28,28,28);background-ima= ge:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-r= epeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-= color:rgb(242,242,242)"><br> <br> </span></i><span></span></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">"Rhetoric=E2=80=99s chief rival would now be sophistry. Socrates says as much in his account of rhetoric; but when Socrates says it again to Callicles, Callicles expresses nothing but loathing for sophistry. Callicles believes the chief rival to rhetoric is philosophy." =C2=A0<b><span style=3D"font-size:13.5pt"><sp= an></span></span></b></p> <p class=3D"MsoNormal">~Seth Benardete,=C2=A0<i>The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato=E2=80=99s Gorgias and Phaedrus= =C2=A0</i><b><span style=3D"font-size:13.5pt"><span></span></span></b></p><= p class=3D"MsoNormal"><i><br></i></p><p class=3D"MsoNormal">Best,<br>Jerry = Rhee</p> </div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan= 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mail= to:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>></span> = wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord= er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Jon- I fully agree. I think the se= arch for 'this' and 'only this' meaning of a term slips int= o that essentialism of 'ontological absolutes'.<br> <br> Edwina<br> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <<a href=3D"ma= ilto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>><br> To: "Arisbe List" <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target= =3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>>; "Inquiry List" <<a href= =3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>>= ; "Peirce List" <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" ta= rget=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>><br> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 10:15 AM<br> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Char= ybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between<div><div class= =3D"h5"><br> <br> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Peircers,<br> <br> We've been through the nominalism versus realism question so many times= that<br> I can't think of anything fresh to say about it.=C2=A0 When the use of = words like<br> Universal, General, Continuous vs. Particular, Singular, Individual comes u= p<br> I find it more useful to focus on the pragmatics of language use relative t= o<br> the context of interpretation, frame of reference, sign relational space, o= r<br> universe of discourse at hand than to go chasing after ontological absolute= s.<br> <br> But I did find this previous comment on Houser on Forster on Peirce while<b= r> I was looking for something else, and it reflects my sense that Peirceans<b= r> have more trouble controlling that slippery slide toward what I've call= ed<br> =E2=80=9Cessentialism=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Contologism=E2=80=9D than they do= checking nominalistic drift.<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Jon<br> <br> <a href=3D"https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-essenti= alism-are-the-scylla-and-charybdis-that-pragmatism-must-navigate-its-middle= -way-between/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://inquiryintoinqu= iry.com<wbr>/2012/09/21/nominalism-and-ess<wbr>entialism-are-the-scylla-and= -<wbr>charybdis-that-pragmatism-must<wbr>-navigate-its-middle-way-betwe<wbr= >en/</a><br> <br> On 9/20/2012 6:10 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Peirce Listers,<br> <br> Earlier this summer, Ay=C5=9Fe Mermutlu posted a notice of Nathan Houser= 9;s review<br> of Paul Forster's "Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism" on th= e Facebook page<br> of the Charles S. Peirce Society and a brief discussion ensued.<br> <br> 1. <a href=3D"http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/" rel=3D"norefer= rer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.facebook.com/groups<wbr>/peircesociety/</= a><br> 2. <a href=3D"http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-peirce-and-the-threat-of-nomina= lism/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29410-<= wbr>peirce-and-the-threat-of-nomin<wbr>alism/</a><br> 3. <a href=3D"http://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/147723= 215363679/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.facebook.com/gr= oups<wbr>/peircesociety/permalink/<wbr>147723215363679/</a><br> <br> My initial comment was this --<br> <br> JA: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 that Pragmatism must navigate its middle way between.<br> <br> On being asked what I meant by "essentialism",<br> I glossed it as follows --<br> <br> JA: This is idea that all phenomena are explained by absolute<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (monadic, non-relative, or ontological) essences inhering<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 in objects, as opposed to any notion that some phenomena<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 can be explained only in terms of relations among objects.<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 For instance, in semiotics, essentialism leads to the idea<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 that signhood is a permanent essence inhering in something,<b= r> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 as a matter of its ontology, as opposed to a role that<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 something performs within the setting of a sign relation.<br> <br> On further interrogation, I added this --<br> <br> JA: If nominalism is the doctrine that generals are only names and<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 only individuals have objective existence, then essentialism = is<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 the doctrine that all names (logical terms) refer to properti= es<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 of individuals.=C2=A0 So a term like =E2=80=9Cfather=E2=80=9D= is only a relative term<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 relative to the perspective of a non-omniscient being who can= not<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 see what individuals are destined to be fathers and what not.= <br> <br> I think it's fair to say that most of the Peirce crew is handy enough<b= r> when it comes to steering clear of nominalism's rock-monster, but not<b= r> so well-drilled in navigating safely by essentialism's whirly places.<b= r> At any rate, I keep seeing a drift in that direction pulling the good<br> ship Pragmatism into the eddy of a most likely futile sea battle, and<br> I thought it incumbent on the duty of my watch to report what I see.<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Jon<br> <br> </blockquote> <br> -- <br> <br> academia: <a href=3D"http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey" rel=3D"nore= ferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://independent.academia.ed<wbr>u/JonAwbrey</a= ><br> my word press blog: <a href=3D"http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/" rel=3D"noref= errer" target=3D"_blank">http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/</a><br> isw: <a href=3D"http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA" rel=3D"noref= errer" target=3D"_blank">http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wik<wbr>i/index.php/JLA= </a><br> facebook page: <a href=3D"https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache" rel=3D"noref= errer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.facebook.com/Jonny<wbr>Cache</a><br> <br> </blockquote> <br> <br></div></div> ------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>-----= ---------------<br> <br> <br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p= x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br> -----------------------------<br> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All&qu= ot; to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to <a hr= ef=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]= .edu</a> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to <a href=3D= "mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a> with= the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More= at <a href=3D"http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm" rel=3D"norefe= rrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce<wbr>-l/peirce-l.htm<= /a> .<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> </blockquote> <br> <br> <br><br> -----------------------------<br> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All&qu= ot; to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to <a hr= ef=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> . To UNSU= BSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to <a href=3D"mailto:list@list.= iupui.edu">[email protected]</a> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L= " in the BODY of the message. More at <a href=3D"http://www.cspeirce.c= om/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.c= speirce.com/<wbr>peirce-l/peirce-l.htm</a> .<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br></blockquote></div><br></div> --94eb2c128cd0e01eb70546102bc0-- ------------=_1484410157-7784-963 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; name="message-footer.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ------------=_1484410157-7784-963--