Mike, Jeff, Lis I think it would be an interesting if rather complex discussion -
My focus would be two-fold 1; I’m interested in the difference between Plato and Peirce in their analysis of How Is Knowledge generated. And used . Obviously, this includes a definition of Mind and Matter and the relationship between the two; a definition of the general and the particular . And, importantly, a definition of truth and fallibility. And- a definition of the evolution of knowledge and the reality of diversity.. I am admitting here - without full knowledge of Plato- that I am assuming that the two are very different - I could be wrong. 2. Then, I’m also interested in WHY these two - which I feel provide very different outlines of these questions - became acceptable within society. That is, my immediate view is that Platonism forms the ground for a societal mindset that is only found in very large populations - and is the foundation for monotheism - which requires a large population in order to develop [ with monotheism understood as a force to assimilate large and diverse populations]. Peirce, on the other hand, with a different outline of knowledge generation, seems to me to fit into the modern quantum physics view - which is setting up an ‘open society’ so to speak [See Karl Popper] and an evolutionary, adaptive view of knowledge generation. ..along with a restraint developed within the self-organization of the system itself [ habits]. The problem with the above - is that it sounds as if ‘my mind is made up’!!! Edwina > On Nov 8, 2024, at 10:20 AM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Edwina Taborsky >> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 3:20 PM >> To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Cc: edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[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 <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >> https://www.cspeirce.com <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] <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[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. > -- > __________________________________________ > > Michael K. Bergman > 319.621.5225 > http://mkbergman.com <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.
