Is Glen a Pragmatist?
Locked
 
|
I thought Glen might like this: This Hegelian view is virtually identical with the so-called epistemological fallibilism (more on which later in this essay) that occupied such a prominent position in Peirce's thinking. For Peirce, every intellectual position is open to criticism and further investigation. Thus for both Peirce and Hegel there is no final, fixed intellectual position free from any potential for being revised; and the processes of revision are in the long run self-correcting. It’s from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html Although, come to think of it, he might disagree with the part after the semi-colon; i.e., he might belief that science is a random walk. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
Yes, I do like that appendage and hadn't read it. Thanks.
I've been accused of Hegelianism more than once, the most stark in a conversation about how to best model the diffusion of innovation, wherein I played the Adversary to an assumption that the concepts of self-organization in physics extend to social systems. But I'm pretty sure I reject (what I infer from) the phrase "self-correcting". I would prefer "sticks close to something" or "fidelity", which may mean make it *sound* like I'm more Piercian than Hegelian. But the truth is I'm agnostic through and through. I'm a real-life Towlie: https://youtu.be/1Y_7P9Ce9Uc On 7/9/20 2:02 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > I thought Glen might like this: > > This Hegelian view is virtually identical with the so-called epistemological fallibilism (more on which later in this essay) that occupied such a prominent position in Peirce's thinking. For Peirce, /every/ intellectual position is open to criticism and further investigation. Thus for both Peirce and Hegel there is /no/ final, fixed intellectual position free from any potential for being revised; and the processes of revision are in the long run self-correcting. > > It’s from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html > > Although, come to think of it, he might disagree with the part after the semi-colon; i.e., he might belief that science is a random walk. > -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
BTW Schopenhauer hated Hegel. He wrote him: "Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are in my opinion not philosophers; for they lack the first requirement of a philosopher, namely a seriousness and honesty of inquiry. They are merely sophists who wanted to appear to be rather than to be something. They sought not truth, but their own interest and advancement in the world. Appointments from governments, fees and royalties from students and publishers, and, as a means to this end, the greatest possible show and sensation in their sham philosophy-such were the guiding stars and inspiring genii of those disciples of wisdom. And so they have not passed the entrance examination and cannot be admitted into the venerable company of thinkers for the human race. Nevertheless they have excelled in one thing, in the art of beguiling the public and of passing themselves off for what they are not; and this undoubtedly requires talent, yet not philosophical" (Arthur Schopenhauer in "Parerga and Paralipomena")-J. -------- Original message -------- From: [hidden email] Date: 7/9/20 23:03 (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] Is Glen a Pragmatist? I thought Glen might like this: This Hegelian view is virtually identical with the so-called epistemological fallibilism (more on which later in this essay) that occupied such a prominent position in Peirce's thinking. For Peirce, every intellectual position is open to criticism and further investigation. Thus for both Peirce and Hegel there is no final, fixed intellectual position free from any potential for being revised; and the processes of revision are in the long run self-correcting. It’s from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html Although, come to think of it, he might disagree with the part after the semi-colon; i.e., he might belief that science is a random walk. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Sorry, typo, I meant "He wrote about him". In the preface of his book "On the basis of morality" Schopenhauer adds Hegel's philosophy would be a "pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking" and describes it as "the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, most stupefying verbiage". He really hated him. The only interesting thing about Hegel is in fact his "dialectic method" which is not even from him according to Wikipedia. Today one would say "whatever you think, think the opposite". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic -J. -------- Original message -------- From: Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> Date: 7/10/20 08:22 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is Glen a Pragmatist? BTW Schopenhauer hated Hegel. He wrote him: "Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are in my opinion not philosophers; for they lack the first requirement of a philosopher, namely a seriousness and honesty of inquiry. They are merely sophists who wanted to appear to be rather than to be something. They sought not truth, but their own interest and advancement in the world. Appointments from governments, fees and royalties from students and publishers, and, as a means to this end, the greatest possible show and sensation in their sham philosophy-such were the guiding stars and inspiring genii of those disciples of wisdom. And so they have not passed the entrance examination and cannot be admitted into the venerable company of thinkers for the human race. Nevertheless they have excelled in one thing, in the art of beguiling the public and of passing themselves off for what they are not; and this undoubtedly requires talent, yet not philosophical" (Arthur Schopenhauer in "Parerga and Paralipomena")-J. -------- Original message -------- From: [hidden email] Date: 7/9/20 23:03 (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]> Subject: [FRIAM] Is Glen a Pragmatist? I thought Glen might like this: This Hegelian view is virtually identical with the so-called epistemological fallibilism (more on which later in this essay) that occupied such a prominent position in Peirce's thinking. For Peirce, every intellectual position is open to criticism and further investigation. Thus for both Peirce and Hegel there is no final, fixed intellectual position free from any potential for being revised; and the processes of revision are in the long run self-correcting. It’s from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html Although, come to think of it, he might disagree with the part after the semi-colon; i.e., he might belief that science is a random walk. Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by thompnickson2
Ha! Ad hominem often tells us more about the speaker than the target. But it's always fun to watch the hens bicker. 8^D
On July 10, 2020 12:03:40 AM PDT, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote: >Sorry, typo, I meant "He wrote about him". In the preface of his book >"On the basis of morality" Schopenhauer adds Hegel's philosophy would >be a "pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real >thinking" and describes it as "the hollowest, most senseless, >thoughtless, most stupefying verbiage". He really hated him.The only >interesting thing about Hegel is in fact his "dialectic method" which >is not even from him according to Wikipedia. Today one would say >"whatever you think, think the >opposite".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic-J. >-------- Original message --------From: Jochen Fromm ><[hidden email]> Date: 7/10/20 08:22 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday >Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: >Re: [FRIAM] Is Glen a Pragmatist? BTW Schopenhauer hated Hegel. He >wrote him:"Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel are in my opinion not >philosophers; for they lack the first requirement of a philosopher, >namely a seriousness and honesty of inquiry. They are merely sophists >who wanted to appear to be rather than to be something. They sought not >truth, but their own interest and advancement in the world. >Appointments from governments, fees and royalties from students and >publishers, and, as a means to this end, the greatest possible show and >sensation in their sham philosophy-such were the guiding stars and >inspiring genii of those disciples of wisdom. And so they have not >passed the entrance examination and cannot be admitted into the >venerable company of thinkers for the human race.Nevertheless they have >excelled in one thing, in the art of beguiling the public and of >passing themselves off for what they are not; and this undoubtedly >requires talent, yet not philosophical" (Arthur Schopenhauer in >"Parerga and Paralipomena")-J. glen - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |