Talk:Pragmatic maxim

message: The pragmatic maxim seems strikingly like the Yoneda lemma from category theory. Namely, to understand a conceptual object, it suffices to understand how the object transforms under all structure-preserving maps. I do not know if this idea has been developed in the philosophical literature yet. If not, then this represents original research and should not be added. If it has been developed, then a reference should be provided, and the content added to this page. --74.66.20.170 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoneda Lemma 

message: How does one set up a disambiguation page?  For instance, the Paul Weiss that I get by default is a different one than the philosopher who edited Peirce's Collected Papers.  Thanks, Jon Awbrey 23:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Page? 

message: The claim that the pragmatic maxim is normative is highly suspect, and I think it stems from Peirce's way of expressing the idea. He says that it should be used to clear up metaphysics, which sounds normative, but it could be argued that Peirce merely encased his idea in intellectually belligerent language: he thought he was right and he wanted to prove the metaphysics was "wrong" and his (weak) argument was roughly, "if you adopt my perspective, everything will become much clearer." This does not mean that the content of the maxim is normative.
Mistercupcake 01:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normative / Positive 

message: As noted in the AFD discussion (q.v.) this article is highly confused.  It is conflating the First Rule of Reason and the Pragmatic Maxim. The first quotation in the article is the Rule. The third is the Maxim.  For sources that can be used to fix this article, see the AFD discussion Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Uncle G asked me to see whether the citations in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pragmatic maxim might be worth including for this article. Good work has appeared since the original AFD discussion for this article closed, so I would recommend including the following which were not cited as sources in that discussion. 
* Cheryl J. Misak 'The pragmatic maxim: how to get leverage on a concept' Harvard Review of Philosophy, Vol 17, 1, 2010, pp. 76-87.
This is a brief paper by one of the foremost Peirce scholars with considerable research behind it but written for a more general audience.
* Christopher Hookway The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism (Oxford University Press, 2013)
This essay collection by another foremost Peirce scholar usefully approaches the pragmatic maxim from different angles.
Of the earlier work suggested as sources for the original AFD discussion, I would recommend including
* Olshewsky, T.M. (1983). "Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim". Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 19: 199–210
* Cheryl J. Misak 'Peirce and the Pragmatic Maxim' in Verificationism: Its History and Prospects (Routledge, 1995).
I would not recommend including the following, because they are not aimed at giving a scholarly understanding of the maxim and are better described as possible applications of (certain interpretations of) the maxim
* Juan Fontrodona (2002). Pragmatism and Management Inquiry: Insights from the Thought of Charles S Peirce Quorum/Greenwood
* Peter Ochs (1998). Peirce, Pragmatism, and the Logic of Scripture. Cambridge University Press.
* Donald L. Gelpi (2000). From Transcendentalism to Pragmatism". Varieties of Transcendental Experience: A Study in Constructive Postmodernism. Liturgical Press.
I would also recommend not citing the article by Sami Pihlström ('Peirce's Place in the Pragmatist Tradition') specifically - since it is not fully focused on the pragmatic maxim itself. However, it would be sensible to in an article of this sort to cite the whole collection from which this particular paper comes: the interested and primed reader will glean much useful information about the pragmatic maxim from this whole collection 
* The Cambridge Companion to Peirce Cheryl J. Misak (ed.) (Cambridge University Press, 2004)
Phenomenologuy (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Literature 

message: I've commented on the placement of the F.R.L. at the top of the article and on the question of whether the Pragmatic Maxim is normative. I said that I'm inclined to revert the article to my most recent edit. Nobody has responded, so if another day or two goes by without response, I'll carry out the reversion. The Tetrast (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall I revert?