I’m with you on this, but I would offer that you’re using pragmatic and pragmatism in a way that glosses over the more sophisticated work we find in Peirce and others who aren’t merely the limited-scope James version.
I don’t actually know their views on this tbh. I have read a little of both but have devoted no significant time to studying either—except in epistemology through Scheler, where I think they would diverge from this kind of picture. A few friends of mine love Peirce, and I hope to do an in-depth study of pragmatism at some point so I can read more of him.
Where do you think James and Peirce write about topics related to this? What’s worth reading by them about value and essence (or analogous pragmatist concepts)? There’s a mountain of stuff and any tips help. Thanks.
The pragmatism you're knocking is basically James as flattened by a century of paraphrase. Peirce, who coined the term, would agree with most of your essay. He was a realist about generals, thought truth was what inquiry converges on at the ideal limit (which sounds a lot like your 'deep invariant structure'), and got so fed up with James's looser version that he renamed his own view “pragmaticism”—a word, he said, “ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.”
If you ever want to poke at it, three to start:
The Fixation of Belief (1877)
How to Make Our Ideas Clear (1878)
What Pragmatism Is (1905)
The third is Peirce drawing the line between himself and James and defending real essences, which is basically the move you're already making. The Law of Mind is also excellent.
Not trying to argue you on your essay; I'm with you on the literature. Just that some of the pragmatists are on your side of this one.
Much of contemporary fiction seems committed to the idea that there is nothing beyond the self, that the world doesn't exist.
I’m with you on this, but I would offer that you’re using pragmatic and pragmatism in a way that glosses over the more sophisticated work we find in Peirce and others who aren’t merely the limited-scope James version.
I don’t actually know their views on this tbh. I have read a little of both but have devoted no significant time to studying either—except in epistemology through Scheler, where I think they would diverge from this kind of picture. A few friends of mine love Peirce, and I hope to do an in-depth study of pragmatism at some point so I can read more of him.
Where do you think James and Peirce write about topics related to this? What’s worth reading by them about value and essence (or analogous pragmatist concepts)? There’s a mountain of stuff and any tips help. Thanks.
Following up on my drive-by comment.
The pragmatism you're knocking is basically James as flattened by a century of paraphrase. Peirce, who coined the term, would agree with most of your essay. He was a realist about generals, thought truth was what inquiry converges on at the ideal limit (which sounds a lot like your 'deep invariant structure'), and got so fed up with James's looser version that he renamed his own view “pragmaticism”—a word, he said, “ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers.”
If you ever want to poke at it, three to start:
The Fixation of Belief (1877)
How to Make Our Ideas Clear (1878)
What Pragmatism Is (1905)
The third is Peirce drawing the line between himself and James and defending real essences, which is basically the move you're already making. The Law of Mind is also excellent.
Not trying to argue you on your essay; I'm with you on the literature. Just that some of the pragmatists are on your side of this one.
This is super useful. Thank you.
About to fly home. Will get you some suggestions post flight. I must admit to being a Peircean at heart.