Edwina, Helmut, List,
I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no
'THE TRUTH' anymore.
Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.),
perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228).
But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good for
us: humans!!!
So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is only
a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 'Dynamic
Object'.
We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it
IS "changing all the time".
It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time,
hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow.
Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that
fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other...
endlessly...
and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, architects,
designers, composers, poets, etc., etc...
if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be also
definitively out of work.
To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object
or our interactions with it." (quote)
You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object
we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming
it at the same time in an Immediate Object
the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I don't
know if this is also an English expression), we will never reach it...
happily...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12:
Claudio, Edwina, List,
I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as the
two kinds of object. When two people talk about a common concept of a
fact, then the dynamical object is the common concept as it exists
outside of the talk (the sign). But this dynamical object is not the
truth-as-the-fact. Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact
that the common concept exists and is like it is.
The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign.
So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is
changing all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical
objects that donot change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or
deductions that have these axioms for premisses.
That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final
interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by
(perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard hunting a
leaping frog.
Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a
third kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or
something that has been in a certain state in the past.
I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by
endless inquiry, because there might be information missing due to
non-complete documentation.
So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely
applies to metaphysical facts.
Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or when
the documentation is complete...
Best,
Helmut
26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are
different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us
'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means
that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have
knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and
analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our
immediate object - and, the three interpretants.
Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than
mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that
dynamic object or our interactions with it.
Edwina Taborsky
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent:
List,
forgive me for jumping in only very shortly
but...
I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts"
but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations.
And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear
explanation of that difference that makes as just humans...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05:
List,
In common language the word "truth" is used for two different
things: The fact and it´s representation (the truth
independent of observation, and the truth as represented-
correct representatrion). In philosophy it mostly is only used
for the representation, and means a correct representation of
a fact.
With one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "Truth": I
would say, that the redundancy theory uses the term for the
fact, otherwise "truth" would not be redundant (tautology, ok.).
I would say, that "truth" in the sense of the fact is
semantically redundant, because a fact is one of the things of
which there can only be one. I think, there is only one person
in the world who claims that there may be "alternative facts".
Examples:
"It is the truth, that Alice and Bob have married": "Truth"
means the fact, and is redundant as a term, because you might
as well just say: "Alice and Bob have married".
"Paul told the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had
married": Fact, redundant, because to tell means to speak
about. "About" is the bridge between representation and fact,
adresses the fact. The sentence can be said like: "Alice and
Bob have married, and Paul has told that".
Though the redundancy is not complete regarding the
connotations: The first version of the statement implies the
suggestion, that Paul does not always adress facts correctly
(tell the truth), which the second version does not imply.
"Paul spoke the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had
married": representation, not redundant. The truth here is not
the fact, but what Paul spoke.
Anyway, I guess it is very dangerous, that there are two
completely different things which may so easily be conflated
and confused, because they share the same term. Eg. the said
person who claims alternative facts is a danger.
I guess, that language in general is somewhat blurry about the
distinction between representation and the represented. But in
the case of the term "truth" it is a major problem, leading to
confusion and misconceptions, even ideologies: Ideologies work
with forged "facts", and are only able to do so, because the
term "truth" is not clear. If there were two words for the two
things (representation and represented), then it would be much
more difficult to establish myths and conspiracy theories,
which both are necessary for ideologies.
I had thought about proposing to call the two types of "truth"
dynamical and immediate truth, but this is confusing, I guess,
because a dynamical object may be an immediate truth. Or
"trueness" and "truth"? I dont know.
Best,
helmut
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply
List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L
posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a
message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
--
*Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri*
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com <mailto:claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
