The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are
different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us
'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means
that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have
knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and
analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our
immediate object - and, the three interpretants.
Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other
than mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both
that dynamic object or our interactions with it.
Edwina Taborsky
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri [email protected]
sent:
List,
forgive me for jumping in only very shortly
but...
I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts"
but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations.
And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very
clear explanation of that difference that makes as just humans...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05:
List, In common language the word
"truth" is used for two different things: The fact and
it´s representation (the truth independent of observation,
and the truth as represented- correct representatrion). In
philosophy it mostly is only used for the representation,
and means a correct representation of a fact. With
one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "Truth": I would
say, that the redundancy theory uses the term for the fact,
otherwise "truth" would not be redundant (tautology, ok.).
I would say, that "truth" in the sense of the fact is
semantically redundant, because a fact is one of the things of
which there can only be one. I think, there is only one person
in the world who claims that there may be "alternative facts".
Examples: "It is the truth, that Alice
and Bob have married": "Truth" means the fact, and is
redundant as a term, because you might as well just say:
"Alice and Bob have married". "Paul told the truth
when he said that Alice and Bob had married": Fact,
redundant, because to tell means to speak about. "About" is
the bridge between representation and fact, adresses the
fact. The sentence can be said like: "Alice and Bob have
married, and Paul has told that". Though the redundancy is
not complete regarding the connotations: The first version
of the statement implies the suggestion, that Paul does not
always adress facts correctly (tell the truth), which the
second version does not imply. "Paul spoke the
truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married":
representation, not redundant. The truth here is not the
fact, but what Paul spoke. Anyway, I guess it is
very dangerous, that there are two completely different
things which may so easily be conflated and confused,
because they share the same term. Eg. the said person who
claims alternative facts is a danger. I guess, that
language in general is somewhat blurry about the distinction
between representation and the represented. But in the case
of the term "truth" it is a major problem, leading to
confusion and misconceptions, even ideologies: Ideologies
work with forged "facts", and are only able to do so,
because the term "truth" is not clear. If there were two
words for the two things (representation and represented),
then it would be much more difficult to establish myths and
conspiracy theories, which both are necessary for ideologies.
I had thought about proposing to call the two types of
"truth" dynamical and immediate truth, but this is confusing,
I guess, because a dynamical object may be an immediate truth.
Or "trueness" and "truth"? I dont know. Best,
helmut
-----------------------------
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 .
