> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello everyone, I follow the discussions somewhat, however, not consistently. > Many interesting thoughts and wondering how they would apply in situational > case scenarios. So I have a question: How would you apply some of these > Peirce "Dynamic/Immediate Object and Determination/Causation" ideas to a > concept like "identity"? In particular, personal identity? Thanks in advance. > Best wishes, Bev
The immediate object would be the environment of speakers relevant to the use. That would include the shared understanding of personal identity not just in terms of abstract ideas but also practices and expectations. The dynamic object would the the actual universal of personal identity. That in turn would be what would be represented as the final idea of personal identity after all the philosophers through time finish debating the subject. A better example isn’t abstract philosophical terms that simultaneously have social practices associated with it like personal identity. It’s perhaps better to use a simpler example out of science like water. Water had a certain sense in say the pre-modern world as the substance common to lakes, rain, tears, rivers and oceans along with perhaps the more social/philosophical notions of water as a fundamental element alongside earth, fire and air. It was also tied to common practices like swimming, watering crops, drinking to quench ones thirst and so forth. Finally it was tied to expectations such as boiling when heated, freezing when sufficiently cold, making one feel refreshed when drunk as one is thirsty, etc. After the rise of modernism and especially science those notions of fundamental elements were largely lost for all but some philosophers and historians. Many of the expectations and practices were the same but now included more specific ones such as boiling when reaching 100°C at STP. However new notions included chemical understanding such as H2O. This allows one to better distinguish between phenomenal aspects of water (how it seems to use in our practices and expectations) from the more objective aspects (its thermodynamic properties like boiling or freezing, its molecular mass, variations due to number of neutrons, etc.). That in turn allows one to play up those distinctions such as say Putnam does with his twin earth experiment. So we can see the shared senses change. We could then, when we speak of a particular conversation, talk of the most common or everyday uses among the speakers in that conversation. So there would be a big difference between the typical American speaking versus say a bunch of physics undergraduates speaking about their physics homework. What’s interesting is that relative to the actual water stuff, the dynamic object remains the same. But the immediate objects will vary significantly among groups based upon their everyday understanding and practices. Likewise there will be different sign-vehicles depending upon the community in question. So French speakers will use the word “eau” while English speakers will use the word “water” and chemists will tend to use the symbol “H2O.” Causally the actual substance of water determines all of these. Likewise semiotically water the substance determines water the universal which in turn determines all these things. (H2O is a possible representation of the water-subtance and thus is virtually within water as the substance and a dynamic object)
----------------------------- 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 .
