Jon, List, 1. Things impress upon me, 2. My impressions of those things are not those things. 3. If 2, and I don't see how we can deny that, then 4. such things exist in themselves regardless of how they impress upon us. 5. Thus, we cannot cognize that which necessarily exist in themselves, beyond our impressions (formal) of them.
That is the most basic format of the Kantian distinction. I must also include this, ‘We can never attain knowledge of things as they are. We can only know their human aspect”. May 20, 1911, Letter to Lady Welby. Now, I can very well infer the thing in itself but I cannot possibly cognize it for it is necessarily beyond me. How can my mental impressions which are of things, but not those things, ever cognize those things as they are in themselves? The very mediatory aspect of representation necessitates that such things are in themselves. Formally, I have outlined this very precisely (natural language muddies things) and it's not ambiguous. It is upon me to put those formalisms here rather than muddled chatgpt postings, but I do know that they stand, consistently in all manner of logical forms. John Sowa made a comment about the "various Peirces". I think that is accurate. As Peirce contradicts himself, as all people do, being fallible, when it comes to thing in itself for he was continuously evolving as scholar (polymath) until his death. Best, Jack ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2023 9:23 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Re: The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again). (Assemblage Formalisms - inference). Jack, List: Again, if the "thing in itself" can be inferred, then it can be represented and is not incognizable after all. So, Peirce was right and Kant was wrong. Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt<http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt<http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 1:46 PM JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The disagreement is about whether a complete representation of an object would be impossible in principle, even in the infinite future after infinite inquiry by an infinite community; Kant says yes, Peirce says no. Yes, to this I go directly. I say I have proven Kant is correct here via the "thing in itself" which by logical series and deconstruction of the mediatory process itself, must be inferred. As it is "in itself", it can never be, to us, "as it is in itself". Best Jack
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
