[FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I don't know what you mean by "base" or "foundational". But I suspect there are plenty of postmodernists who *allow* for a truth of the matter. They simply don't think such truth is directly accessible, which I *thought* postmodernism held in common with both pragmatism and pragmaticism. Doesn't Rescher even argue that, although distinguishable from pragmaticism, James and Dewey are more relativist than Peirce?

It would be fantastic to read some treatment of higher order structures like social justice issues from Peirce or one of his intellectual descendants. 

On 12/26/19 2:47 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
> The weird merger of pragmatic and postmodern thinking always bristles me. I can see how Rorty gets there, selectively taking from William James and others, but it is all so... dystopic. 
> 
> I don't think Peirce would have any problem with it all, IF the people putting forward those views were research psychologists, anthropologists, and/or sociologists, actually sciencing how such power-dynamics work. The idea that one would take that as anything near a "base" or "foundational" idea for a philosophy, however, is what would drive him nuts. And if you focus on the power-dynamics so much that you lose the idea that AT LEAST SOMETIMES there is a truth of the matter which could, over sufficient time, overtake the effects of any power-dynamics and come to be the consensus opinion by simple dint of being what actually achieves when tested... well... if you lose that idea altogether, then you definitely aren't doing pragmatism any more. 
> 
> Eric (Smith), Peirce has extensive writings on probability and VERY extensive writings on logic. I suspect he has much of what you are looking for, we just don't focus on that part of his work as much. While he didn't have a full modern understanding of all that stuff, he was massively ahead of his time. 

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ