Edwina, List, I think that post is very well done. Precise epistemological location and also a clearly articulated view of what thirdness is with respect to nominalism and realism, respectively.
I'll have a think over that but I consider it a potentially very interesting start from which to hear other people's views. I think the descriptions/definitions are important as otherwise we're talking around each other. I have but one note to add: The Real, for me, can only be an "ethical understanding" for this, how we practice with respect to ourselves and among each other, is the only practical constant that remains regardless of one's view of the universe or particular physical/metaphysical understanding. That's where I locate "truth" —in ethical practice whereby ideal is not idealism but necessarily true in the most pragmatic sense of the term. Best Jack ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 3:33 PM To: Gary Richmond <[email protected]> Cc: Peirce List <[email protected]>; edwina taborsky <[email protected]> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness and Its Function Thirdness and its Function 1] I think a discussion of whether or not someone is a ‘nominalist’ vs a ‘scholastic realist’ can be empty – particularly when neither term is defined. 2] I think the nature of and role of Thirdness is vital – and ask whether or not it can appear in either nominalism or scholastic realism or in both? First – a brief definition. Nominalism, in my view refers to a belief that generals or universals [Thirdness] are concepts created by man and only individual entities ‘exist’. Scholastic realism refers to the view that generals or universals, understood as the rule of law governing individual instantiations of these laws -are real in themselves and not creations of man. 3] I don’t think either view can be removed from its societal connections and implications. The scholastic realism view fits into a societal view where the laws of life, so to speak, are predetermined [ by god?] and fixed; they can’t be changed by man’s whim. The nominalist view arose twice, in the 13th c and in the 18th c – when the rise of individual freedom of thought emerged, and the individual was seen as capable of not merely acceptance but of generating new laws, new rules. These are monumentally different world views and have of course, social and political implications. 4] Thirdness according to Peirce is, as developed by Nature, “ a mode of being which consists in the Secondness that it determines” 1903. 1.536. And “Thirdness cannot be understood without Secondness.” 1904. 8.331. Thirdness mediates between input and output, between “the causal act and the effect’ 1894.1.328 and Thirdness emerges ‘in nature’ 1887 1.366. – creating an ‘intelligible law. Obviously these definitions of Thirdness are aspects of scholastic realism not nominalism – but it is important to note both ultimate agency – Nature vs god and correlations. 4] I note – and I think this is vital - Peirce emphasizes the role of Secondness in actualizing Thirdness, ie, Thirdness does not function alone but as correlated with Secondness and Firstness enabling it to existentially function as that rule of law, to function as a predictive force of morphological formation. Where, Thirdness in the ‘first degree of degeneracy’ 1903. 5.70, in ‘irrational plurality, where the rule of law enables multiple individuals all aspects of that rule of law”… The key connective triadic sign is the Symbolic Indexical, [Thirdness as Secondness] which has been recently discussed and is one of the key Signs in Peircean semiosis. 5] I note that this insistence on the indexical actuality of Thridness moves Peirce into an analysis where these rules can change! Because of that connection with Secondness! These changing rules are not as concepts articulated by man but, in themselves. This is not nominalism but moves into the self-organized realm of CAS [ complex adaptive systems] which are a later development in the scientific world – and is most certainly a concept rejected by those who subscribed to the invincibility of these rules - ie- that Secondness or actuality had no effect on them. . Most certainly Peirce rejected predetermined Thirdness, with his support of the ‘symbols grow’ ; the fact that Thirdness rules evolve, adapt and change – due both to chance [ Firstness] Tychasm] and Agapasm or a feeling of connectness to the data. But he also rejected the vagaries of nominalism which sees a world without the realities of non-human Thirdness, ie, without the reality of rules and laws which are objectively real and not ‘figments of the mind’. Nominalism can move into pure idealism, where the rules can be considered human ideas - and these can lead to totalitarianism. 6] If we continue with the societal context – we can then ask – why does one or the other theory become dominant? The theory of nominalism, which empowers man to make-and-change-the rules of life; vs the theory of realism which inserts a non-human agency as the source of the laws {Nature,god]. And – furthermore – an additional concept that these laws are immutable and cannot change or be changed vs that the laws can self-organize and change. I think these are two basic mindsets which will always be with us – and we cannot ignore the societal modes in which they operate. Edwina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
