Hi Jeff,
I really like the way you framed this. I, for one, would enjoy reading
such a discussion on this list. (Edwina?) As someone quite unfamiliar
with Plato, I would especially like to see contrasts and consistencies
drawn in Plato's and Peirce's methods of inquiry. I hold fallibility and
the knowability of truth to be cornerstones in Peirce's architectonic.
Best, Mike
On 11/8/2024 3:17 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Edwina, List,
You say: "In Plato and others, I understand that knowledge is /a
priori/ and the existential world is a weak and possibly corrupt
version of this ‘wholeness’. Indeed, this assumption is a basic format
of most monotheistic religions!"
Not being a Plato scholar, I find the dialogues great fun to
read--especially in the company of others--such as students. At times,
it can be challenging to sort out the views of the various
interlocutors. My general approach is to interpret the texts as
exercises--written by Plato--for the students at the Academy.
Considered in this light, then one can think of the works as an
opportunity to rehearse various lines of inquiry in the company of
others who were at the Academy, such as Eudoxus, Thaeatetus and Aristotle.
I think of Plato as a philosopher who is engaging in active inquiry.
Instead of treating his "Platonism" as a collection of conclusions he
has adopted, I interpret most of the arguments as lines of inquiry
being explored. It is clear he thinks some lines are more promising
than others. Having said that, the various interlocuters (Socrates
included) often find themselves retracing their steps--trying to
figure out where they might have gone wrong.
I read Peirce in a similar way. He is often considering a range of
hypotheses, and he is exploring various ways competing hypotheses
might be put to the test. Through this process, theories of logic,
metaphysics, etc. do take shape, but Peirce considers many of the
conclusions drawn as provisional in character. One could, as he does
in some places, stop and assign varying degrees of confidence to the
propositions that make up a given theory. If one took the time to do
that, I think we would find many of the propositions attributed to
Peirce are held with degrees of confidence that range from low to
moderate. He holds such views because he doesn't yet see better
answers to the questions at hand. There are numerous shortcomings in
the explanations offered, but he is hoping such views might lead to
better hypotheses at some point in the future.
So, if you want to take up some of Plato's lines of inquiry, let me
know. Doing so would require that we look at the texts and try to sort
out the arguments--bit by bit. An attempt to summarize Plato's views
in a sentence or two will, I tend to think, miss the living and
growing character of the methods and processes of inquiry he is
modeling in the dialogues.
Yours,
Jeff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [email protected]
<[email protected]> on behalf of Edwina Taborsky
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, November 7, 2024 3:20 PM
*To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]>
*Cc:* edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Plato and Peirce
Jeff, list
I repeat some of my points from a previous post - which is a focus on
what I see as a fundamental difference between Plato and Peirce -
which is - the direction, so to speak, of knowledge. In Plato and
others, I understand that knowledge is a priori and the existential
world is a weak and possibly corrupt version of this ‘wholeness’.
Indeed, this assumption is a basic format of most monotheistic religions!
Whereas, the sense I get from Peirce is a rejection of this concept -
with its an essential split between Mind and Matter - and an outline
that almost rejects full knowledge and instead, sets up an
infrastructure where knowledge, which includes the actual existential
forms that matter can be, actually evolves and increases and yes -
even changes!
This is a huge difference.
The a priori Platonic universals [Forms] posits knowledge as a priori
timeless nature. This sets up a mindset focused around the concept of
‘purity’ and ’the ideal’. But the Peircean outline, to me, rejects
this. My understanding of Peircean universals is that they, as habits
of Formation, are generated within and by existential matter as it
evolves and interacts with other existents. [objective-idealism].
His whole outline of the emergence the universe [ 1.412] and 6.214—is
as an evolutionary cosmology [6.102] “where all the regularities of
nature and of mind are regarded as products of. Growth and to a
Schelling-fashiooned idealism which holds matter to be mere
specialized and partially deadened mind” 6.102….
And “ideas tend to spread continuously and to affect certain others
which stand to them in a peculiar relation of affectibility. In this
spreading they lose intensity and especially the power of affecting
others, but gain generality and become welded with other ideas’.
6.104. In this reference, it seems to me that generals
actually evolve within the universe.
And since the three categories are basic modes within the universe -
then, the universe has its own capacity to self-organize and generate
these universals - as outlined in 1.412, where habits emerge and
develop. And ’the unsettled is the primal state”. 6.348 - which would
be, I suggest, the opposite of Platonism.
That is - Peirce sets up a semiosic infrastructure, which, in my
view, enables such an evolutionary and almost unknowable universe.
1] He defines the three categorical modes of being as basic to
the universe. These modes include teh capacity to change without
intention [Firstness]; the reality of existential individuality [
Secondness] and the reality of commonality among these individualities
[ Thirdness].
2] And Peirce’s outline of the Complete Sign as an irreducible triad
as the basic method of such adaptive evolution sets up a method for
the informational transformation of data from one Sign to another
Sign, and, with the categories, the transformation of their input data
into generals. ]See outline in 6.142]…”the affection of one idea by
another”… “It is that the affected idea is attached as a logical
predicate to the affecting idea as a subject”. And “No sign can
function as such except as far as it is interpreted in another sign’
{8.225f]….the essence of the relation is in the conditional futurity”.
3] I note again Peirce’s insistence that this semiotic triad is an
active, transformative function -
1908 MS[R]277
By a Sign is meant any Ens which is determined by a single Object or
set of Objects called its Originals, all other than the Sign itself,
and in its turn is capable of determining in a MInd something called
its Interpretant, and that in such a way that the Mind is thereby
mediately determined to some mode of conformity to the Original or Set
of Originals. This is particularly intended to define [very
imperfectly as yet] a_ Complete Sign”. [my emphasis]. And “signs …are
triadic” 6.344.._
3] The concept of the Dicisign -, ]See outline in 6.142]…”the
affection of one idea by another”… “It is that the affected idea is
attached as a logical predicate to the affecting idea as a subject”. ..
That is - Dicisgns, are not merely descriptive [ mental] of an object
but are indexically connected to that object. I stress this fact -
that the dicisign is materially, physically, connected…and is basic to
the Peircean infrastructure.
If you add to this format, the categories, you produce a system where
existential information and knowledge can be both generated,
increased - and lost. {See Robert Marty’s The Lattice of Five Paths]/
As Peirce outlines in his description of a semosic interaction
8.314]…”The Dynamic Object is the identity of the actual or Real
meteorological conditions at the moment” - ie - the DO is not an
external object but THIS external object with which I am interacting
in THIS semiosic function. This thus moves the information of the DO
into a semiosic transformation.
As such, by continuous induction, “a habit becomes established [
6.145]. ….”Thus, by induction, a number of sensations followed by one
reason become united under one general idea followed by he
same reaction”…6.146. This sets up a habit or general…ie..one that is
generated within existential matter by the ‘Mind’ that is operative
within matter as Thirdness.
—————
My point is - that this system is the complete opposite of the
Platonic system - and - I’d say that the Platonic system with its
concept of the ‘ideal ‘ [whether a priori or in the future] is
grounded in much of the thought processes of the world [ certainly in
monotheism!] - and the Peircean system is… very different.
Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but [email protected] with
UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More athttps://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
319.621.5225
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at
https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
