Dear Dan,
You say, "I discuss Kant’s work in my book, Dark Matter of the Mind,
where I argue that there is no innate knowledge. 'Duty' 'respect' even
things like colors are largely cultural constructs, in a way that I believe
fits in quite well with Peirce’s phaneroscopy. I am not aware of any
statement in Peirce’s architectonic where innate, a priori knowledge plays
a crucial causal role for building his philosophy."
Peirce's critical common-sensism marks a sharp contrast to your claim that
innate ideas play no crucial causal role in Peirce's philosophy. Consider
his statement from "Consequences of Common-Sensism" in the Collected Papers:
“Now every animal must have habits. Consequently, it must have innate
habits. In so far as it has has cognitive powers, it must have *in posse*
innate cognitive habits, which is all that anybody but John Locke ever
meant by innate ideas. To say that I hold this for true is implied in my
confession of the doctrine of Common-Sense—not quite of the old Scotch
School, but a critical philosophy of common-sense. It is impossible rightly
to apprehend the pragmatist’s position without fully understanding that
nowhere would he be less at home than in the ranks of individualists,
whether metaphysical (and so denying scholastic realism) or epistemological
(and so denying innate ideas).” Peirce, 5.504
Gene Halton
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 3:49 PM Dan Everett <[email protected]> wrote:
> John,
>
> I agree with you on this. A significant difference between Peirce’s a
> priori and Kant’s is that Kant’s is necessarily not derived from
> experience. Peirce did, as you say, allow that some things might be prior
> to experience, but one gets the feeling that he would be quite happy if it
> could be shown that they were not, apart from logical constraints. One
> strong difference between Peirce’s use of the term “universal grammar” and
> Chomsky’s later use of the same phrase (going back to the Modistae, as
> readers of this list know) is that for Peirce universal/speculative grammar
> is neither nature nor nurture. I think that he would have been pleased with
> any demonstration that showed the same for non-logically required
> categories.
>
> I discuss Kant’s work in my book, Dark Matter of the Mind, where I argue
> that there is no innate knowledge.
>
> “Duty” “respect” even things like colors are largely cultural constructs,
> in a way that I believe fits in quite well with Peirce’s phaneroscopy.
>
> I am not aware of any statement in Peirce’s architectonic where innate, a
> priori knowledge plays a crucial causal role for building his philosophy.
>
> Like Hume’s use of “instinct” Peirce’s use of that term (or phylogentic
> habits) does not necessarily support nativism as widely conceived in
> contemporary literature.
>
> - Dan
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Apr 7, 2019, at 3:29 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/7/2019 1:59 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
> >> As an example of an /a priori/ element in moral cognition, consider the
> role of the /feeling/ of respect in deliberation about the what is required
> as a matter of duty. As an example of an a priori element in aesthetic
> judgment, consider the condition of seeking harmony in the experience of
> the beautiful. As an example of an /a priori/ element in mathematical
> cognition, consider the role of the intuition of the whole of ideal space
> in geometrical reasoning.
> >> In each case, I tend to think that Peirce agrees with Kant that these
> are /a priori/ and not merely /a posteriori/ elements in our practical,
> aesthetic and mathematical cognition.
> >
> > That's an interesting argument. But I recall something Peirce said
> > about that issue (but it would require quite a bit of search to find
> > exactly where).
> >
> > He said that Kant's Critik drV was his basic training in philosophy
> > (when he was 16). But he diverged from Kant about what is a priori.
> > Peirce admitted that there are probably some innate tendencies and
> > preferences that determine value judgments. But experience (i.e.,
> > informal phaneroscopy) is essential to develop the details.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > 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
> .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-----------------------------
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 .
