Isn’t it paradoxical that I think so low of other people whereas when I am with them it’s actually me who is disregarded and ignored? Pierce would say I am suffering from an illusion...
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Which is the illusion? Your estimation of them, or that they are not secretly noticing you?
My estimation of them and of myself. Pierce defines truth as whatever the community endorses. And I am seriously wondering maybe there is something "true" in what he says..
Peirce Actually! As for Peirce's pragmatism (which is better to put in Conventionalism - though his fellow Dewey founded it), the truth is constructed pragmatically and yet it's so probable. but i doubt that his approach, even his original semiotical one to the knowledge has do anything with personal reflections; don't you think so? in my view, it's a waste of spirit to contemplate over existential subjects by analytical approach (even its most objectively originated one: pragmatism)in which the essential nature of our life (paradox) is taken as anomaly. Moreover, He was Logician, so don't take him seriously... what can i say!? ;)
Thanks for this good comment, but I think Pierce's approach is very human and Humean (in the naturalist sense) here. Humans and their personal reflexions are a part of the world and reality. And truth is defined as a convention between humans who have to face the practical aspects of The Real in their lives (and that forces them not to accept mere sophistries). It is not at all defined as a coherent logical statement that can be proved. Even when he talks about scientific enquiry, his account seems somewhat Kuhnian to me. Though he believes that in the end of enquiry there is a final state in which everyone in the community accepts the results and that science is therefore "true", it is all left to humans to do it nonetheless.
What seems paradoxical, though, is that the acount is still so monistic and cannot bear any individual opponent. I think it views such "unusual" individuals as wastes of nature, who will finally be cast out from the evolution cycle! But I would say it's a mere optimistic speculation to think that the final state (100% agreement upon everyone) can ever be reached cuz there have always been unusual people like us in the world ;) And without that state being reached, I don't see any good in calling that incomplete (say 99% agreed) science better or closer to the truth than any other science.
4 comments:
Which is the illusion? Your estimation of them, or that they are not secretly noticing you?
My estimation of them and of myself. Pierce defines truth as whatever the community endorses. And I am seriously wondering maybe there is something "true" in what he says..
Peirce Actually! As for Peirce's pragmatism (which is better to put in Conventionalism - though his fellow Dewey founded it), the truth is constructed pragmatically and yet it's so probable. but i doubt that his approach, even his original semiotical one to the knowledge has do anything with personal reflections; don't you think so? in my view, it's a waste of spirit to contemplate over existential subjects by analytical approach (even its most objectively originated one: pragmatism)in which the essential nature of our life (paradox) is taken as anomaly.
Moreover, He was Logician, so don't take him seriously... what can i say!? ;)
Thanks for this good comment, but I think Pierce's approach is very human and Humean (in the naturalist sense) here. Humans and their personal reflexions are a part of the world and reality. And truth is defined as a convention between humans who have to face the practical aspects of The Real in their lives (and that forces them not to accept mere sophistries). It is not at all defined as a coherent logical statement that can be proved. Even when he talks about scientific enquiry, his account seems somewhat Kuhnian to me. Though he believes that in the end of enquiry there is a final state in which everyone in the community accepts the results and that science is therefore "true", it is all left to humans to do it nonetheless.
What seems paradoxical, though, is that the acount is still so monistic and cannot bear any individual opponent. I think it views such "unusual" individuals as wastes of nature, who will finally be cast out from the evolution cycle! But I would say it's a mere optimistic speculation to think that the final state (100% agreement upon everyone) can ever be reached cuz there have always been unusual people like us in the world ;) And without that state being reached, I don't see any good in calling that incomplete (say 99% agreed) science better or closer to the truth than any other science.
P.S. I know nothing about Dewey yet.
Post a Comment