John wrote: "I am not arguing that pure firsts are not real; (6231-1) I am arguing that they are not what we experience directly."
Let me expose my ignorance. Is this what is known as "constructive realism"? With all the bet. Sung > At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote: >>The notion of how signs get to their editing is clearly ultimately a >>matter of theory. But the theory can stipulate that there is the >>penumbra which I infer from direct experience. > > I don't think you entitled to do this. Do you really think I would be > so stupid as to ignore this possibility? I am arguing that what you > experience is already interpreted, and hence not a pure first. > >> Indeed, merely because we use words and theories, of necessity, >> does not mean that they do not correctly infer things that are >> real, including things to which we have given names. For example >> the word tolerance refers to something which I believe is real, >> along with other values, And by real I mean they are universal and >> universally applicable. Now that is clearly all theoretical, but it >> makes all the difference if what you are theorizing is something >> you take to be fundamental to reality. > > Yes, but this is rather beside the point. I am not arguing that pure > firsts are not real; I am arguing that they are not what we > experience directly. > > John > > ---------- > Professor John Collier > [email protected] > Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South > Africa > T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 > Http://web.ncf.ca/collier > >
----------------------------- 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
