Steven
On 9/8/06, you wrote:
... I will have to get myself an electronic version of the CP.
AS: I got myself a copy from Intelex a few years back, and I am convinced that it's a product that, while not as indispensible as sliced bread, comes pretty close to that in the field of Peirce study.
R. Jeffrey Grace asks about Daniel Dennett's Heterophenomenology, which
maintains that all subjective states are ultimately objective states
...
You may have to explain how you extract that from Dennett; it sounds
nonsensical to me, but then it's been several years since i read Dennett
on
Jeffrey Grace wrote:
It struck me as Peirceian because, if I'm not mistaken, Peirce
denied that there was such a thing as "introspection". He also seemed to
affirm the idea that individuals are "less real" than generality... or rather
that all individuals are instances of general categories
Dear Gary,
I like what you've said about teaching and learning
from a Peircean POV. My best teachers were those who encouraged learning
by setting a good example of it themselves and also showed a genuine interest in
my desires. The teacher and the student are much the same. I also
think
Dear Jeffrey and Jim,I do not believe that comparing theories by abstracting their general statements about reality is sufficient. Dennett's theater of the mind argument argues against the homunculus and the theater.IMHO, Dennett makes arguments against which Peirce would rebel fiercely - in both
List,
The question is being too easily dismissed. For Peirce, its not that introspectiondoesn't exist, but that its results are unreliable for the purposes at hand, namely, a theory of cognition and the deduction of categories. The overall anti-Cartesian emphasis of Peirce's early work is
Dear Steve,
I did not meant to convey that I thought Dennett
favored the theater of the mind metaphor, but it would not surprise me if Peirce
found Dennett's view simplistic. Personally I mostly have to content
myself with just the surface of the debate though I'm always hoping to grasp the
Dear Vinicius,
Thank you very much for the references. I've printed out the de Tienne
and am finding it most valuable. I'll look up the Houser piece as well.
Best,
Gary
Vincius Romanini wrote:
Dear Gary,
You might want to check this references on the subject.
De Tienne, A.
Ben,
You say,
"The question is WHETHER the stove is black -- yes, no, novelly, probably, optimally, if only if..., etc. What is required for assertion or proposition or judging or even conceiving the situation is that the mind can apprehend whether the stove
is,
isn't,
may be,
might
Jim and list::
Sorry to be slow in responding. I just discovered that about half of my email has been going intothe spam folder. It's a new account and the version ofit I am using is a newformat for yahoo and still a bit clunky and erratic.(The new yahoo mail isa lot like Outlook Expressthough it
Jim,
[Jim Willgoose] You say,
"The question is WHETHER the stove is black -- yes, no, novelly,
probably, optimally, if only if..., etc. What is required for assertion or
proposition or judging or even conceiving the situation is that the mind can
apprehend whether the stove is, isn't, may
Dear Joe,It may satisfy you then to know that yesterday on conclusion I wrote the following in that part of my book that refers to the Kant and Peirce quotes we discussed:"Clearly, this is an integrative view and appears to place epistemological primacy in signs. However, a broader familiarity
Thanks, Jim! On 9/8/06, Jim Piat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeffrey Grace wrote:
It struck me as Peirceian because, if I'm not mistaken, Peirce
denied that there was such a thing as introspection. He also seemed to
affirm the idea that individuals are less real than generality... or rather
On 9/8/06, Steven Ericsson-Zenith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Jeffrey and Jim,I do not believe that comparing theories by abstracting their general statements about reality is sufficient.
Steven, good point... and I agree. I don't think such a comparison is sufficient but I do think it's
Jim and list:
This is just a repeat of my previous message,spell-checked and punctuated correctly, with a couple of interpolated clarifications, and minus the unphilosophical paragraphsat the beginning and end: (I will try to state it better in a later message.)
As regards your question: I will
15 matches
Mail list logo
