> On Aug 24, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Agreed - all three categories are fundamental to semiosis; I don't see how > anyone can view 'semiotic just as Thirdness'. But I think that the definition > of realism isn't so much about Thirdness or any 'undue privileging' [??] but > about the LOCATION of the universals. Realism considers that universals are > real, held within the community [eg the species] . Nominalism considers that > universals are personal concepts, held within and by the individual - and > presumably, only within human symbolism.
I think realism for Peirce requires continuity not just the community. If I have him right a finite community is not fundamentally different from an individual for nominalism. This is why I think he focused on finite collections versus infinite collections along with Dedekind and Cantor - even if his formulation was different in many interesting ways. The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of mea an you. Thus, the very origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception essentially involves the notion of a community, without definite limits, and capable of a definite increase of knowledge" (CP 5.311) My other point about realism is just that it is about signs, not brute actions or absolute feeling. Further it’s what reasoning results in as a representation and thus thirdness. But I agree it doesn’t make sense to talk of semiosis without secondness or firstness even in their raw basic form. Lots do though.
----------------------------- 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 .
