A lecture on Charles Sanders Peirce is an impossbility. This brilliant mind has produced so much, that you cant do anything else than make a selection. One which is in line with our project.
Peirce was exceptional in the the field of logic. He discovered really new aspects of logic, new approches and these new insights directly had an effect on his philosophical ideas regarding epistemology and ontology.
He developed a theory of cognition, which was the basis of later pragmatism. Any organism that is to survive, Peirce held, must develop habits of behavior that are adequate to satisfy its needs.
Such habits are rules of behavior that prescribe how we should act under given conditions in order to achieve a particular experiential result. Now such habits, when thoroughly adopted hecalled beliefs.
Since to posses beliefs is to know how to satisfy one's wants, belief is a pleasant state. Doubt , or the absence of belief, is an unpleasant state, since one is then uncertain how to act and is unable to attain the desired goal.
The process by which the organism goes from doubt to belief Peirce defined as inquiry. From the standpoint of the inquiting organism, a belief concerning a particular object is significant because it permits the organism to predict what experiences it will have, if it acts towards the object in a given way.
Peirce propounded what he called the pragmatic theory of meaning,which asserts that what the concept of an object means is simply a set of all habits involving the object.
He saw three grades of understanding a concept. First stage is an unreflective grasp of it in everyday experience. The second stage is to have, or be capable of providing, a definition of the concept. This definition should also be abstracted from any particular experience, i.e., it should be general.
The third stage he formulates thus: Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then the whole of our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of the object.
From this understanding we can derive a number of conditional propositions which indicate what to expect from actions upon, and interactions with, this concept. So we know how to act in respect to this concept by a number of what...if statements.
Peirce's pragmatism is a theory of meaning, not of truth. He was also stressing the utilitarian aspect of science and of all knowledge, that is, that significance lies in the relation to ends desired.
Taken together, pragmatism and his theory on beliefs imply that stable beliefs sought by inquiry are in fact the laws of science.
I am not an expert on Peirce...is almost impossible. He changed his ideas fundamentally four times. His philosophy is highly abstract and difficult. William James was the man who really made pragmatism well known. John Dewey followed in his footsteps.
A final remark....the philosophy scene has been dominated by England , France and Germany for centuries. And it is a remarkable fact that around 1900 the US produces its own original philosophers. An interesting historical fact.
The Discussion
[13:25] Herman Bergson: So far on peirce....:-)
[13:25] hope63 Shepherd: well the indians weren't a problem any more so they had time to think:)
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: he seems to be a real renaissance man from what i read
[13:26] Herman Bergson: He was a talented man indeed, but a character..:-)
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess
[13:26] AristotleVon Doobie: how so a character, Herman
[13:26] Stanley Aviatik: depending on how you define 'character'
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: free spirit I think
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:26] Herman Bergson: Well..not in a philoso[hical way..his private life..
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: a rascal then?
[13:27] Stanley Aviatik: I pay for mine
[13:27] Gudrun Odriscoll: I think it is interesting that he changed his theories so frequently
[13:27] Herman Bergson: guess so..:-)
[13:27] Herman Bergson: yes Gudrun....
[13:27] Herman Bergson: the changes were caused by his new insights in logic it seems
[13:27] Mickorod Renard: but his thinking although abstract appears too grounded to me
[13:27] hope63 Shepherd: caused by what women?
[13:28] Stanley Aviatik: presumably admitted getting it wrong 3 times - so who's to say 4th was correct
[13:28] Herman Bergson: what do you mean Mickorod?
[13:28] Mickorod Renard: i mean it was all too much logic
[13:28] Gudrun Odriscoll: You mean distraction by love, hope
[13:28] hope63 Shepherd: stan. the word correct doesn't apply in philosophy..
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: can there be too much logic?
[13:28] Herman Bergson: let's stick to the issue here plz
[13:29] Samuel Okelly: was his work on semiotics of significant importance?
[13:29] Stanley Aviatik: depending on how you define correct
[13:29] Stanley Aviatik: or even humour
[13:29] Herman Bergson: Yes I think it was...
[13:29] Mickorod Renard: i think u can be restricted by logic
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: I dont think you can fault someone for refining their opinions
[13:30] Osrum Sands: definitely Aris
[13:30] Stanley Aviatik: absolutely
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: I do it everyday
[13:30] Gudrun Odriscoll: Refining is one thing, but fundamentally changing another
[13:30] Herman Bergson: To give you an example in what way you see Peirce influence in semiotics..
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: well yes, opposite poles is not goods
[13:30] Stanley Aviatik: Freud did it
[13:31] Osrum Sands: dialectics maybe
[13:31] Gudrun Odriscoll: What did Freud?
[13:31] Stanley Aviatik: Changed some theories fundementally
[13:31] Herman Bergson: I did want to give you an example regarding semiotics...I am not dealing with Freud here
[13:31] Gudrun Odriscoll: Okay, semiotics please
[13:31] Osrum Sands: sorry it was a slip I guess
[13:32] Herman Bergson: Peirce stated...his theory was a theory of meaning....the menaing of concepts..
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL Os
[13:33] Herman Bergson: later when the linguistic analysis became popular, Charles Morris wrote an article describing the aspects of a concept.
[13:33] Herman Bergson: he distinguished three aspects of meaning:
[13:34] Herman Bergson: a concept has a denotation....the RL reference
[13:34] Herman Bergson: it has a connotation.....emotional contensts
[13:34] Herman Bergson: and a pragmatic dimension...it leads to actions
[13:34] Herman Bergson: this last dimension is typically Peirce..
[13:34] Gudrun Odriscoll: it can lead to actions, or? this is not a must
[13:35] Herman Bergson: to give you an example..
[13:35] Herman Bergson: When I say Stand still!!!
[13:35] Herman Bergson: The denotation is stopping movement
[13:36] Herman Bergson: the connotation can be fear or shock
[13:36] Herman Bergson: the pragmatic dimension is the actual stopping of physical movement
[13:36] Herman Bergson: or..the opposite..running away..:-)
[13:36] Gudrun Odriscoll: Or running away
[13:37] Alarice Beaumont: yes
[13:37] Gudrun Odriscoll: Sorry am sluggish, did not want to interfere with your stuff, herman, but running away came immediately into my mind
[13:37] hope63 Shepherd: what if i'm just too tired to move.. where is the connotation and the action comes before the concept..
[13:37] Herman Bergson: lol....we think alike Gudrun..:-)
[13:38] Herman Bergson: But the interesting issue is....Peirce was the first one to relate the meaning of a concept to actions
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: the very first??
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: wow
[13:38] Herman Bergson: actions that would produce experiential data
[13:39] Mickorod Renard: when the policeman asks' why did you run away' i will say ' it was the pragmatic dimension
[13:39] Gudrun Odriscoll: so he must be interesting for psychology
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: which makes room for more ideas and disscussion..... great!
[13:39] Herman Bergson: Maybe Ernst Mach was already thinking along these lines...not sure
[13:39] hope63 Shepherd: in a way plato's cave example already has it in it too..
[13:40] Herman Bergson: YEs Gudrun....I think it was Dewey who wrote a lot on psychology and education for instance
[13:41] Herman Bergson: And as Hope remarks...the indians were out of the way..America had time to think..:-)
[13:41] Gudrun Odriscoll: lol
[13:41] Herman Bergson: It is a historical fact that Peirce, a brilliant mind, was realy the first American philosopher
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: what about his father?
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: I suggest that not only the genocial removal of the Indians but eh horrific civil war and reconstructon was past
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: just a teacher of ??
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: yes Ari
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: thanks
[13:42] Herman Bergson: It keeps it focused on the fact that philosophy is not just cerebral, but also a historical process
[13:42] Gudrun Odriscoll: I like that
[13:43] Herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle, very well remarked
[13:43] hope63 Shepherd: you surprise me herman.. saying historical:)
[13:44] Herman Bergson: It is a pleaure to surprise you Hope, ...:-)
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL,
[13:44] Stanley Aviatik: lol
[13:44] Gudrun Odriscoll: funfunfun
[13:44] hope63 Shepherd: well.. took you 5 months to admit it:)
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: surely history provides the stimulus for thought
[13:44] Stanley Aviatik: good things take time
[13:45] Gudrun Odriscoll: maybe curiousity is a stimulus for thought
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: but every thing we have talked about since philosopher 1 was the effect on philosophy thru the years
[13:45] Herman Bergson: Well what I was thinking of is that we soon will have to deal with Marx..:-)
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: you know that hope
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: the curiousity would provoke Mr Peirce's inquiry I believe
[13:45] Gudrun Odriscoll: Marx is dead, long live Marx
[13:45] Herman Bergson: LOL
[13:45] Herman Bergson: AMEN
[13:45] Stanley Aviatik: and spencer
[13:46] hope63 Shepherd: history is not limited to philosophy gemma..
[13:46] Herman Bergson: Well...let's summarize..
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: of course not!!!
[13:46] Stanley Aviatik: nor is history
[13:46] Osrum Sands: just wish he'd lived long enough to finish his last work
[13:46] Gudrun Odriscoll: Stan, this is an insider thing for the people in the UK
[13:46] Qwark Allen is Online
[13:46] Herman Bergson: The most important thing we see in Peirce's theory is
[13:46] Herman Bergson: that there is made a relaltion between meaning and action
[13:47] Herman Bergson: so the menaing of a concept is not only a denotation, but also an action
[13:47] Brunoo Loon: What we think now is gift from the time, pieces we collect through the time, and one road directly to one idea accepted in general , txam txam
[13:47] hope63 Shepherd: so causuality is now commonly accepted?
[13:47] Gudrun Odriscoll: by whom?
[13:48] Herman Bergson: causality, maybe yes.....but how it is defined is another matter Hope
[13:48] hope63 Shepherd: agreed..
[13:48] Herman Bergson: that still is a hot issue
[13:49] Alarice Beaumont: it is ;-)
[13:49] Mickorod Renard: maybe the mind is complex enough to use several methods in defining it
[13:49] hope63 Shepherd: one has to agree on the meaning first mick..
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: true
[13:50] Gudrun Odriscoll: parallel universes?
[13:50] Herman Bergson: Well, Mickorod, peirce changed his ideas four times
[13:50] Mickorod Renard: there we go then
[13:50] Herman Bergson: Well...I think we can conclude our introduction of Peirce and Pragmatism here
[13:50] Stanley Aviatik: What do you think caused the need for all those changes?
[13:51] Stanley Aviatik: what altered his mindset
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: the progress of science i think
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: ???
[13:51] Brunoo Loon: New questions
[13:51] Gudrun Odriscoll: too much sun
[13:51] Herman Bergson: The Next two philosophers, William james and John Dewey will tell us much more about it.
[13:51] Osrum Sands: every day sensiouy inputs
[13:51] Osrum Sands: no enough Sun
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:52] Gudrun Odriscoll: never enough
[13:52] Herman Bergson: And a special hello to the new faces in class like Anuska and Ophelia
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: Unless you have now hat, Gudron
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: no
[13:52] Gudrun Odriscoll: lovely names
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: :-))
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: welcome to this ..........
[13:52] hope63 Shepherd: at least he developed an idea that included the feelings into a general theory..
[13:53] Anuska Loon: ;)
[13:53] Gudrun Odriscoll: no hat ari, too warm
[13:53] Osrum Sands: one of the bast places in SL
[13:53] Herman Bergson: I thank you for your attention and good discussion...:-)
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Herman
[13:53] Samuel Okelly: thanks again Herman :)
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: we have stuck to it from months!!!!
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: :-))
[13:53] Mickorod Renard: If mankind was a network of computers built to reason what the ultimate answer is,then would it reach a successful outcome or reach a state of madness?
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: and sign up for aristotle's book too
[13:53] Ze Novikov: this place of sparking minds...
[13:53] Osrum Sands: well when your on a good thing .... Stick to it
[13:54] Stanley Aviatik: As ever, thank you so much Herman
[13:54] Gudrun Odriscoll: thanks herma THANKS
[13:54] Ze Novikov: ty!!
[13:54] oola Neruda: was that answer 47?
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: how could you program a computer for flux, Mick?
[13:54] Mickorod Renard: thanks herman
[13:54] hope63 Shepherd: mick.. who canassurwe that we are not in a state of madness today..
[13:54] Alarice Beaumont: yes thanks herman :-)
[13:54] herman Bergson smiles and blushes a little
[13:54] Mickorod Renard: he he he
[13:54] Stanley Aviatik: I'm in the same state of madness! today
[13:54] Mickorod Renard: yeh
[13:54] Herman Bergson: Thank you all...you are great people..:-)
[13:54] Gudrun Odriscoll: We all are so mad that we think we are normal
[13:54] Osrum Sands: Ah madness ... that wonderfull state of free thinking unconstrained by ...
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: whos blushing now?
[13:55] Mickorod Renard: logic
[13:55] Stanley Aviatik: all of us
[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:55] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:55] Osrum Sands: yes Mick logis is one thing
[13:55] Gudrun Odriscoll: it looks here like at the RED SEA, all these blushes
[13:55] Osrum Sands: conformity, fear, love
[13:55] Osrum Sands: any of the usual constraints
[13:55] Osrum Sands: ego
[13:55] Samuel Okelly: thanks herman and best of luck sorting out your electric :)
[13:56] Herman Bergson: Nice color..:-)
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: i hope it improves
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: soon
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: red sea? can't see any moses here:)
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: goodness
[13:56] Osrum Sands: from his cold dead hands
[13:56] Stanley Aviatik: but loads of wet egyptians
[13:56] Gudrun Odriscoll: moses is still in the basket
[13:56] Herman Bergson: Arent you Moses Hope???
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: lol
[13:56] Gudrun Odriscoll: LOL
[13:56] hope63 Shepherd: lol... more pharao may be:?)
[13:57] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:57] Osrum Sands: hahah
[13:57] Alarice Beaumont: haha
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment