As wished by John, some comments to the jpg, as well as on some comments
presented:
I find the diagram a misleading, not a clarifying one.
I found the quote provided by Tommi a highly relevant problematization
of the issue. I also agree with the critical notes provided by Jerry, up
to a point.
The essence of anything lies in what it aims at, wrote Peirce. He also
emphasized that meaning lies in effects, not just in words.
Changing 'science' into 'knowledge' in CSPsciences jpg cannot be
justified by current English dictionaries or other records of current
use of the word 'science' in US or UK. - In Finnish usage, for example,
the word for 'sciences' includes human sciences, and philosophy.
Who could say, on any grounds, that here and now we have a state of
affairs (in science) CSP aimed at? The future he was aiming at?
What has truly and really changed from the day CSP died to this day, is
that by now CSP has become popular in academic circles. That is a new,
quite recent phenomena.
With fame comes all the misfortunes always attached to it. – People just
do not like to change their habits of thought. (Which truly is
cumbersome!)
People are inclined to accomondate whatever is presented to accord and
follow their habits. With even acrobatic twists and turns in their
(mostly spontaneus and nonconscious) moves of mind in the process of
making sense of whatever is offered.
CSP was a radical, in the sense of not following the well-trodded-on
pathways. His ways of thinking still are radical in that respect.
Easy-to-digest presentations will do no good.
To cut it short: I do find this CSPsciences.jpg a misrepresentation.
The latin rooted "idio" was used by CSP for a deep reason, in accord
with his comprehension of the web of (semeiotic) relations between minds
and meanings. – It just is not something to be thrown into a bin as
'outdated'.
This web of relations I have been studying for almost half a century.
First without Peirce, then with Peirce. So I have deep reasons, just as
well.
Jerry has been approaching the idea of 'idio' from the viewpoint of
identity and perplexity. And has met with conundrums, id est (ie)
cul-de-sac's.
Hegel tried to tackle the question with his Phänomenologie des Geistes.
–It is to be noted that whilst Peirce quite harshly mocked Hegels
'Logik', he later on took a much more mellow view with Hegel's
phenomenology. Even stated that the three moments by Hegel bore a clear
resemblance with his three elements of (all) experience. (Which is what
the quote presented by Tommi is basicly about).
Peirce found a positive accord with the phenomenology of Hegel, but
definitely not so with Husserl & followers. – However, nowadays the WORD
phenomenology is commonly understood as refering to Husserlian
phenomenology. With whatever variation of its meaning that may apply
with any given audience.
This is a problem to be addressed, not something to be overlooked.
Especially with audiences not familiar with CSP.
Best,
Kirsti
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
