....He goes on to say: "It is Kant's "I think," which he considers to be an act of thought, that is, to be of the nature of a symbol. But his introduction of the ego into it was due to his confusion of this with another element." I'd like to figure out what Peirce thinks the confusion amounts to. On the Kantian account, the recognition of the validity of an act is a key idea.
I wonder if the confusion was adding (self-)consciousness into the mix, which in Peirce's world is not needed for operative signification. Just a thought. Cheers, Cathy
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
