Helmut, list My understanding is that, for Plato, ideas/forms are abstract entities ..non-material, unchangeable; separate from matter, that act as functional forms to model the material objects in the world. But they are not merely human mental constructs [ conceptualism, nominalism] but have an agential force of their own with the world [ not reliant on human will or consciousness]….and thus, act as ‘pure morphological guides’ . The less perfect particular objects in time and space are merely copies. These Platonic ideas/Forms don’t ‘exist’ per se in time and space. Existence is confined to material existents in time and space which merely represent/express these abstract ideals. This is a clear separation of Mind and Matter.
For Peirce, on the other hand, Mind and Matter are integrated [ not identical] and the one cannot ‘exist’ without the other. Mind, as Thirdness, evolves as habits of organization [not ideal Forms] of morphological reality, within time and space - with no definite future agenda [ that’s because of the chance effects of Firstness]. The only certainty is increasing complexity and variations - and both the increasing complexity of Thirdness as well as its possible entropic dissipation [ via Firstness]. . I’m not sure of your meanings with regard to possibility and necessity. Edwina > On Nov 10, 2024, at 2:50 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, ....., List, > > I don´t know, if it really is so, but i assume, that for Plato ideas and/or > forms exist. For Peirce, they are possibles. In the last discussions I have > learnt, that possibles and necessitants don´t exist. I am trying to > illustrate this: > > Possibility is the absence of necessary negations. Necessity is the absence > of possible negations. Absence can only be confirmed with complete induction. > Complete induction can not be possible, because nobody can know all necessary > negations. Therefore, complete induction does not exist. Therefore, > possibility and necessity don´t exist either. > > Best, Helmut > > > 8. November 2024 um 19:42 > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > 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 > <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] . ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
