John Sowa and Peirce-l,
The discussion about The Thing in Itself has been interesting. I think you’re
right to remind some of us of the importance of biographies and the history of
time when determining what Peirce and Kant “really” said about
things-in-themselves. You demonstrate the value of
Jack, I agree with you, especially about the bickering.
But when I said that the details are not important, I meant the tons of
quotations. You won't discover why Kant and Peirce disagreed about the
noumenon just by reading what they wrote -- or any commentary by any scholar of
either or both.
Jon, Jack, John Shook, List,
I also concur with John Shook's critique of Jack's latest argumentation.
While Jon's message here should at least put to rest what Peirce's position
is in this matter (although it no doubt won't), his succinct summary of
that position (especially when taken along with
Jack, List:
John Shook's assessment of your latest argumentation is spot-on. The two
different perceiving objects do not perceive two different "copies" of
object 1, they both directly perceive the very same object 1 itself.
However, their different perceptual perspectives and faculties give them
