3 added 9 characters in body
source | link

Peirce's pragmatic maxim seems to have an appeal, at least as a "tiebreaker":

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.

Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident? If someone disagreed with the pragmatic maxim, and tried to refute it, wouldn't they have to use it in order to consider its practical effects, thereby accepting it?

Peirce's pragmatic maxim seems to have an appeal, at least as a "tiebreaker":

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.

Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident? If someone disagreed with the pragmatic maxim, and tried to refute it, wouldn't they have to use it to consider its practical effects, thereby accepting it?

Peirce's pragmatic maxim seems to have an appeal, at least as a "tiebreaker":

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.

Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident? If someone disagreed with the pragmatic maxim, and tried to refute it, wouldn't they have to use it in order to consider its practical effects, thereby accepting it?

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/758456739205419008
2 added 240 characters in body; edited tags
source | link

Is thePeirce's pragmatic maxim self-evident?

The pragmatic maximPeirce's pragmatic maxim seems to have an appeal as, at least as a "tiebreaker." Is"tiebreaker":

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.

Is the pragmatic maximpragmatic maxim self-evident? If someone disagreed with the pragmatic maxim, and tried to refute it, wouldwouldn't they be usinghave to use it and consideringto consider its practical effects, thereby accepting it?

Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident?

The pragmatic maxim seems to have appeal as at least a "tiebreaker." Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident? If someone disagreed with the pragmatic maxim, and tried to refute it, would they be using it and considering its practical effects?

Is Peirce's pragmatic maxim self-evident?

Peirce's pragmatic maxim seems to have an appeal, at least as a "tiebreaker":

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.

Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident? If someone disagreed with the pragmatic maxim, and tried to refute it, wouldn't they have to use it to consider its practical effects, thereby accepting it?

1
source | link

Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident?

The pragmatic maxim seems to have appeal as at least a "tiebreaker." Is the pragmatic maxim self-evident? If someone disagreed with the pragmatic maxim, and tried to refute it, would they be using it and considering its practical effects?