Charles S. Peirce
Charles Sanders Peirce was an American scientist, mathematician, logician, and philosopher who is sometimes known as "the father of pragmatism".… more
Source: Wikipedia
H-index:
52
Take for illustration the sensation undergone by a child that puts its forefinger into a flame with the acquisition of a habit of keeping all its members out of all flames.
I use the word "self-controlled" for "controlled by the thinker's self," and not for "uncontrolled" except in its own spontaneous, i.e. automatic, self-development, as Professor J. M. Baldwin uses the word.
An "Experience" is a brutally produced conscious effect that contributes to a habit, self-controlled, yet so satisfying, on deliberation, as to be destructible by no positive exercise of internal vigour.
The "Actual" is that which is met with in the past, present, or future.
make up a set of circumstances sufficient to distinguish it from all other events; and these belong to it, i.e. would be true if predicated of it, whether A, B, or C Actually ascertains them or not.
/2x
/2x
Thus, the substance of a dream is not Real, since it was such as it was, merely in that a dreamer so dreamed it; but the fact of the dream is Real, if it was dreamed; since if so, its date, the name of the dreamer, etc.,
/1
/1
"Real" is a word invented in the thirteenth century to signify having Properties, i.e. characters sufficing to identify their subject, and possessing these whether they be anywise attributed to it by any single man or group of men, or not.
Reposted by: Charles S. Peirce
Edifying philosophy falls into self-deception whenever it tries to do more than send the conversation off in new directions.
'Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature' p.378
#Rorty
#Pragmatism
#Conversation
'Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature' p.378
#Rorty
#Pragmatism
#Conversation
This argument, however, only covers a part of the question. It does not go to show that there is no cognition undetermined except by another like it.
The apprehension of space and time results, according to him, from a mental process, the "Synthesis der Apprehension in der Anschauting." (See Critik d. reinen Vernunft. Ed. 1781, pp. 98 et seq.) My theory is merely an account of this synthesis.
/2x
/2x
Kant, it is true, makes space and time intuitions, or rather forms of intuition, but it is not essential to his theory that intuition should mean more than "individual representation."
/1
/1
The above theory of space and time does not conflict with that of Kant so much as it appears to do. They are in fact the solutions of different questions.
Still, it would be impossible to find a passage where the authority of Aristotle is directly denied upon any logical question.
Recognized authorities were certainly sometimes disputed in the twelfth century; the mutual contradictions ensured that, and the authority of philosophers was regarded as inferior to that of the theologians.
This use of "speculation" did not take root, because that word already had another in exact and widely different meaning.
tunc antem facie ad faciem, he called the former speculation in the latter intuition.
/2x
/2x
The word intuitus first occurs as a technical term in St. Anselm's Monologium. he wished to distinguish between our knowledge of God and our knowledge of finite things (and in, the next world, of God, also); And thinking of the saying of St Paul, Videmus nunc per speculum in oenigmate:
/1
/1
In a subsequent paper, I shall trace the consequences, of these principles, in reference to the questions of reality, of individuality, and of the validity of the laws of logic.
No cognition not determined by a previous cognition, then, can be known. It does not exist, then, first, because it is absolutely incognizable, and second, because a cognition only exists so far as it is known
Besides, all the cognitive faculties we know of are relative, and consequently their products are relations. But the cognition of a relation is determined by previous cognitions.
Reposted by: Charles S. Peirce
“It is hardly worth while to oppose science and art sharply to one another, when the deficiencies and troubles of life are so evidently due to separation between art and blind routine and blind impulse. Routine exemplifies the uniformities and recurrences of...
(1/3)
(1/3)
Reposted by: Charles S. Peirce
A talent for speaking differently, rather than for arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change.
'Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity' p.7
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Vocabulary
'Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity' p.7
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Vocabulary
But to adduce the cognition by which a given cognition has been determined is to explain the determinations of that cognition. And it is the only way of explaining them.
On the other hand, since it is impossible to know intuitively that a given cognition is not determined by a previous one, the only way in which this can be known is by hypothetic inference from observed facts.
If it be said that the incognizable is a concept compounded of the concept not and cognizable, it may be replied that not is a mere syncategoreumatic term and not a concept by itself.
Reposted by: Charles S. Peirce
Anything can be made to look good or bad, important or unimportant, useful or useless, by being redescribed.
'Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity' p.7
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Redescription
'Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity' p.7
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Redescription
Question 6. Whether a sign can have any meaning, if by its definition it is the sign of something absolutely incognizable.
It would seem that it can, and that universal and hypothetical propositions are instances of it.
It would seem that it can, and that universal and hypothetical propositions are instances of it.
According to this, our question does not relate to fact, but is a mere asking for distinctness of thought.
A man says to himself, "Aristotle is a man; therefore, he is fallible." Has he not, then, thought what he has not said to himself, that all men are fallible? The answer is, that he has done, so, so far as this is said in his therefore.