Why do people have a problem with Peirce's infinite semiosis? How is it anti-realist? It seems like Peirce was heavily biased towards realism, with his crusade against nominalism and everything.
>>23304883Only Americans take Pierce seriously. America has produced no good philosophers.
>>23304903Continentals were cribbing from Peirce's scraps for much of the later 20th century lol. If anything, Peirce is far more appreciated among continental philosophers than American analytic philosophers.
>>23304903Uh, Deleuze followed him religiously
>>23305003And Deleuze was a retarded communist. Your point?
>>23305104Tell me why you don't like Peirce.>hardmode: don't say he's American, talk about his ideas
Can you summarize his philsophy in one paragraph? And is this the guy that goes on about dyads and twoness like hegel does with his dialectic, it seems like he is trying to ape hegel except that hegel showed how his dialectic applies to history. It sounds hopelessly derivative.
>>23305637https://warosu.org/lit/thread/22427201#p22427217https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23011916#p23014095https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23035821Peirce differs heavily from Hegel in terms of cosmology, metaphysics, and method. Just because they talk about triads doesn't mean it's built on the same ground. Anything Hegel does, Peirce takes to its finale with more rigor on top of a bedrock of realism.
>>23305847How does he do that when he is making the same unfounded implicit assumptions about it being necessary that there must be a third thing to connect two things just like hegel does with history being a process of progress?
>>23305883Let me give you an extremely rough breakdown through an example:Firstness: one thing, (1) some vague qualitySecondness: two things, (1) vague quality (2) "reacts" with your mindThirdness: three things, (1) vague quality (2)"reacts" with your mind (3) to form a defined concept that applies to future vague qualitiesIn other words, the difference between a dyadic and triadic conception of logic is the difference between nominalism and realism. The engine of thirdness, what Peirce associates with thought, is something called "hypostatic abstraction". Furthermore, the same process applies to laws of nature. There couldn't be laws of nature if the interaction between two things wasn't governed by some third thing. And the beauty of Peirce's evolutionary metaphysics is that that third thing can evolve through new interactions.
>>23305886This is just a dialectic in a realist's universe where these vague qualities exist to react with your mind.
>>23304883>>23305886>a dyadic and triadic conception of logic is the difference between nominalism and realism>>23304883>MUH FORMSvisual metaphor of availability, presence, giving account of itself willingly: EIDOS as in APODEXIS -- what stands-forth of its own accord regardless of obvservationEmanation therefrom as Momente of the Absolute [viz. APEIRON/Monad] settling in the point-form (KHORA) of least resistance/rest in Actuality/Instantiationinfinite semiosis gilding the AORISTAS DYAS lilly, as in NOT the 'indefinite dyad' but the pre-horizonal/beyond & over the horizon and/or rainbow/AHEAD OF THE CURVE of the eliptic [time, temporality, extension]Peirce appreciated Hegel, Hegel appreciated Kant and even his needless Greek coinage when suitable jargon was in place in the canon already, we fail all the above in Academia and the dregs-remenant of the quasi-para-literate-(re)public of letters thanks to seventy years of terminal boomerist 'end of history' triumphalism embezzling the Cold War 'Peace Dividend' spiking the proverbial football in their own world historic endzone, so to speak. Peirce's place is relatively secure in the grand scheme of things. Then again we only have fragments of most of the Greeks.
>>23305963That's a meaningless simplification but sure. Not sure what you're trying to get at. At least according to Peirce, Hegel denies that the first and second qualities exist in their own right. You can read more here:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html
>>23305992What the living hell are you talking about? This is worse than standard ChatGPT slop.
>>23305997That's exactly what i am saying, he is an essentialist who idealizes qualities like kant/plato did, then uses hegel's dialectic to posit that these qualities interact with mind or that thought and perception arise out of this interaction. Its no different from what kant did with his categories with qualities taking the place of noumena or a prioris, forms, etc.
>>23306009you emphatically have no idea what you're talking about. there's no "idealization" going on with Peirce (and to say that Plato or Kant idealizes qualities is as hilarious as it is ridiculous). there is no substance pluralism here. maybe read something besides wikipedia and you might get a clue besides reducing every philosopher to a handful of quips.
>>23306182I am not using idealizing philosophically, i am using it to describe how you describe his qualities. He thinks qualities exist to interact with the brain, that is essentially idealizing them. Don't be butthurt when we call into question your idol's repeated and tired ideas that has been since refuted by people like hume. There is no basis for firstness or thirdness or whatever other retarded name you want to call this obviously inductive reference. You take an idea, use the brain, then call the outcome a thought, no different from how hegel or kant did it and no less dubious than what hume showed.
>>23306009>>23306213You should calm down, lol. There is no Platonic eide in Peirce. Despite siding with realists against nominalists, Peirce hypostatizes no quality.>It is easy to believe that those rules of reasoning which are deduced from the very idea of the process are the ones which are the most essential; and, indeed, that so long as it conforms to these it will, at least, not lead to false conclusions from true premisses. In point of fact, the importance of what may be deduced from the assumptions involved in the logical question turns out to be greater than might be supposed, and this for reasons which it is difficult to exhibit at the outset. The only one which I shall here mention is, that conceptions which are really products of logical reflection, without being readily seen to be so, mingle with our ordinary thoughts, and are frequently the causes of great confu- sion. This is the case, for example, with the conception of quality. A quality, as such, is never an object of observation. We can see that a thing is blue or green, but the quality of being blue and the quality of being green are not things which we see; they are pro- ducts of logical reflections. The truth is, that common-sense, or thought as it first emer- ges above the level of the narrowly practi- cal, is deeply imbued with that bad logical quality to which the epithet metaphysical is commonly applied; and nothing can clear it up but a severe course of logic.
>>23306213>He thinks qualities exist to interact with the brain, that is essentially idealizing them. The qualities don’t exist on their own. The brain generates its perception of qualities through an inferential process. You don’t come up with the categories through a dialectic because firstness is not a starting point, you’ve already used thirdness by the time you perceive a first. His “basis” for the categories is prescinsion and abstraction and dissociation, yes it obviously is empirically arrived at, he literally claims that it is through phaneroscopy/“phenomenology” combined with logical concepts that one arrives at the categories, not an abstract dialectic but an empirical process.
>>23306259He still assumes that there is such a quality as blue or green to be thought of no different from kant positing that things in themselves lead to perception via transcendetal logic. I mean how would you even know blue or green were qualities if they weren't already observable? This kind of sophistry of distinguishing btn perception and thought is disingenuous. Also he treats logical reflection as an afterthought, as if we can turn it off and aspire to higher forms of logic, he is essentially idealizing thought which would lead to nasty conclusions.
>>23306274> This kind of sophistry of distinguishing btn perception and thought is disingenuous.That’s literally what he doesn’t do.>For Peirce, then, color is a concept which is implied to the manifold of impressions as an explaining hypothesis; it is not therefore an impression itself. The term “impression” is thus restricted to the instantaneous neurological stimuli which occasion the concept and are related by it. That this is the sense in which Peirce employs the term “impression” in the “New List” is made clear in the opening sections of draft four:>”…the simplest color is almost as complicated as a piece of music. Color depends on the relations between different parts of the impression; and, therefore, the differences between colors are the differences between harmonies; and to see this difference we must have the elementary impressions whose relation make the harmony. So that color is not an impression but an inference.”
>>23306272>you’ve already used thirdness by the time you perceive a firstThis makes no sense. How can firstness proceed to thirdness if qualities did not already exist? How can you have already used thirdness before firstness? Lets assume the first thing to be perceived was the quality of heat. How can heat not already exist to be perceived? Qualities need to exist before perception. He seems to be doing what hume was doing with impressions but his wording is off, hume says that there are only impressions, what they derive from is unknown, but that's the only reality we have. This guy is implicitly assuming qualities exist to be thought of in a process by which they transform into thoughts, if not, then how else would he know that they are qualities to become anything?
>>23306315> How can firstness proceed to thirdness if qualities did not already exist?It doesn’t. All the categories are supposed to be irreducible and can’t be explained in terms of each other. As I said, it isn’t a dialectic. > Lets assume the first thing to be perceived was the quality of heat. Peirce explicitly states that there is no first cognition.> This guy is implicitly assuming qualities exist to be thought of in a process by which they transform into thoughtsYou’re assuming he is a Kantian when he majorly departs from Kant in this regard. Qualities are not transformed into thought because they already are inferences. >>23306289
>>23306274>This kind of sophistry of distinguishing btn perception and thought is disingenuousHume didn’t distinguish one from the other?
>>23306328It is still circular logic when you consider he has no basis for assuming qualities proceed to concepts using his firstness to thirdness process. To make that argument you have to assume there is a quality behind every concept, it is logically necessary that every defined concept has a corresponding quality, vague as it might be. Necessity and existence have to be implied here even if no first cognition ever happened which imho is a contradiction.
>>23306361>firstness to thirdness processare you dense? I already said twice it isn't a dialectic. THERE IS NO PROCESSION. >it is logically necessary that every defined concept has a corresponding quality, vague as it might be.Peirce is an extreme realist who believes only generalities exist. So qualities do not have to underly concepts because they already are concepts. You CANNOT understand Peirce from within a purely Kantian framework like you are trying to do. You clearly aren't an idiot but you haven't read what you're talking about so you have no idea what Pierce actually says. Pick up the first volume of Essential Peirce and read it through.
>>23306376>o qualities do not have to underly concepts because they already are conceptsto clarify, qualities in the Kantian sense you're thinking of them don't have to underly concepts. Every third involves a first, but you don't understand what a first is. It isn't an independently existing thing. the only reason it can be presented as separate or "prior" from the other two categories is because of prescinsion. Every third involves a first, but first are NEVER transformed into thirds, and firsts never come into actual existence without a third already existing.
>>23306376then who wrote this>>23305886 if its not a process
>>23306395I didn't write that but he wrote still doesn't imply there is a dialectical progression from firstness to thirdness. The verbal presentation of it may make it seem that but as I said the only reason you can separate them is through prescinsion. In reality they are never separate.
>>23306407But thirdness involves a progression from quality to concept that's what i mean. That is dialectical, the concept then becomes the synthesis, i don't understand why we are arguing about such an obvious thing. Then you say he is a realist, realism is the belief that universal qualities exist, etc.
>>23306413Perhaps instead of thinking of a first as a quality you should probably think of it as an instantaneous occasion. If you isolate your experience into a single instant, everything within that instant is technically a first even though your brain obviously had to use thought to construct the perception that exists within that instant moment. When you say thirdness "involves a progression from quality to concept" you're assuming that the quality is not already a concept, and also that the third somehow subsumes the first, which it doesn't do. The synthesis becomes a new first and the first it was built out of has already vanished and so is unaltered, it only existed in that one instantaneous moment. So there is no linear progression because1. the quality was already a concept to begin with2. the quality is not altered by its synthesis in the third3. the concept is not a completely different class from the quality because a concept is not a mere third but involves all the categories.
>>23306425So you have an instantaneous impulse let's say pain, which disappears, the mind becomes aware of this, then it combines it with other impressions to form a concept, how is this not progression, to talk about concept formation you have to assume progression implicitly even if the first time you become aware of it is in thirdness, the mind is forming this concept for your awareness, its not like the three exist for the mind to occasionally pluck out of thin air.
>>23306457that isn't the same kind of progression you were talking about earlier though, which is what you need in order to claim that he is 'idealizing' qualities. it's not that hegelian kind of logical progression, and I don't see how you would have anything against this existing since obviously concepts are formed.
>>23306477It is essentially a dialectic if we are being honest about single definable concepts. Also the distinction btn the three assumes that some pre concepts are waiting to be concepts, doesn't this assume their existence. It would be nice if you could give an example of what they are. There are some instantaneous impulses that do not necessarily become concepts, but when they do, it is essentially through a dialectic process, that's at least how i understand this.
>>23306526the impulse stuff is from his early philosophy when he was like 27, perhaps it contradicts his extreme realist philosophy that only generals exist, or perhaps we should distinguish between concepts which exist in the human mind and other existents which are still generals but exist outside the human mind. insofar as a concept develops in the human mind, the pre-concept would still involve all three categories because the categories are supposed to be real elements of the world and not only in the human mind. it would still be a "generality" though you may not want to call it a "concept."
>>23306213>There is no basis for firstness or thirdness or whatever>>23306274>This kind of sophistry of distinguishing btn perception and thought is disingenuousThis conversation reminds me of the topic of the Three Worlds of Karl Popper. It ultimately revolves around one's understanding of the independence of the physical, psychological, and metaphysical realities. If the entities of each of those realms are as real as the others, that means Phaneroscopy/Phenomenology, Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness, et cetera are coherent.
>>23306274>idealizing thought which would lead to nasty conclusions.what does it mean to idealize thought and name some nasty conclusions
>>23306328>It doesn’t. All the categories are supposed to be irreducible and can’t be explained in terms of each other. As I said, it isn’t a dialectic.What do you mean by that? You can still prescind firstness from secondness and firstness and secondness from thirdness.
>>23306526You're using the word concept to make distinctions that don't exist in Peirce. There are no pre-concepts which "fail" to become concepts. Peirce doesn't believe in a hard distinction between what is material and what is mental. For him, the material is deadened, inactive, or inert mind. And, like the other person said, what's happening is a complex, continuous interaction between objects where thirds take the role of firsts which then present as thirds and so on. You'll also need to define what you think dialectic is because you seem to insist upon it.
bump
>>23306809don't you EVER associate Peirce with the king of coffeehouse scum on my board again
>>23307722If the word concept doesn't apply, then why are there different categories? Why the need to distinguish firstness through thirdness if peirce doesn't presuppose pre-concepts that never become concepts? This framework can be described by thirdness alone if concepts, preconcepts, and dialectics;there is no other definition here btw, I don't understand what other definition you think exists other than the one used by hegel, were never a thing. His need for these three categories seems to come from a want to describe some incompleteness that necessarily exists in these interactions btn objects as you put it, what do objects even mean?
>>23305104>Deleuze>Communist Just say you've never read him, it would be much less embarrassing.
i understand he was genuinely highly intelligent but i dont see how any of his philosophy is informative about anything whatsoever
>>23309449because concept is human/person centric. you have to step outside ideas and mental content being only present in the human mind. instead, think of the human mind as antennae for the ideas present in the world (which is only made up of manifold ideas, btw).
>>23311081Peirce literally progressed research on electricity and computers. There isn't a philosopher more practically relevant to the world except maybe Marx
>>23311081and why do you say this without thinking you were just filtered?
>>23311854That doesn't make any sense. So you deny pre concepts that aren't yet concepts then go on to say that there are ideas floating outside the human mind, make up your minds you peirce faggots.
>>23304903The country that follows him the most is China were he has been a major force on the ethos of the chinese experiment and look, they became successful.
>>23312179>So you deny pre concepts that aren't yet concepts then go on to say that there are ideas floating outside the human mindthere's literally no contradiction between these two statements. obviously there aren't "pre-concepts" (i.e. pre-ideas) because they are already ideas. the only place pre-concepts makes sense is in analyzing somebody's unique mental status. it has no ontological import. >>23312236wait what?
>>23312283No there is definitely a contradiction there. Ideas that float around waiting to be captured by the brain are pre concepts, they become ideas once the human mind acquires them, otherwise everyone would be privy to all ideas, this is also supported by the fact that two people could have the same idea but think it means different things. Some people believe god created living things, but disagree who this god is, these are two similar ideas with different execution.
>>23312283Also how can ideas not exist pre-epistemically for us to pluck and make sense of. This is something that you peirce fags have not addressed. If you make the distinction that qualities become concepts then you have to assume that qualities exist even without a brain which is circular reasoning because qualities are properties of knowledge not metaphysical objects. Two different people could draw different qualities from the same observation not because they capture different qualities but because their brains interpret the same thing differently. Qualities then become post epistemic, you can't talk about them before the brain captures them.
>>23312283https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Cobb#The_influence_of_Cobb's_thought_in_ChinaIf you start with this author and line of application of process philosophy you'll find out a lot of places in china that have the name center for proccess studies and the like.
>>23312387You're literally trying your hardest not to get the point because you're stuck in your own terminology and forcing other people's terminology to match your own without sorting out the corresponding notions. You might as well be bashing your head against the wall because you'll sooner get it that way than by whatever you're doing right now.>>23312409>Also how can ideas not exist pre-epistemically for us to pluck and make sense of.Hey retard, that's what we've been saying this whole time. The fact is that the ideas DO exist pre-epistemically because the whole world is made of ideas. And isn't this the complete opposite of what you were arguing a few posts ago now? Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing lol. Jesus Christ, get a load of the autism on this guy.
>>23312409And GODDAMN >Two different people could draw different qualities from the same observation not because they capture different qualities but because their brains interpret the same thing differently.This is probably the dumbest argument you've made because you're literally using semiotics coined by Peirce to argue against a fictional Peirce (which is the complete opposite of Peirce lol). What's next?>Peircefags never address the lion in the room, that the world is made up of signsnigger just read a fucking book for once instead of cribbing Wikipedia pages and maybe you won't be making these embarrassing mistakes because you'll allow the ideas to percolate through your brain before you start misattributing them to the corresponding thinker
>>23312443Peirce is not a process philosopher and his work sufficiently encompasses both process and substance philosophy.
>>23312517Then if ideas do exists like that why did you deny peirce is doing what kant did with noumena, retard?? He is basically aping kant and saying that ideas exist without our knowledge and then when they are capture in the brain they become representations of the world???? Why are you faggots so disingenuous? First one of you says there are no pre concepts, then another says there are???
>>23312545>why did you deny peirce is doing what kant did with noumena, retard?? Why don't you have a peek to see what Peirce thought about Kant and the phenomena-noumena distinction? I'm sick of you presumptuous retards not doing even the most basic background reading before writing off somebody. Your laziness and arrogance will be your undoing. And it won't even be that glamorous. It'll be the ignoble and unremarkable downfall shared by everybody who partakes in combination arrogance and laziness.
>>23312549What peek? Someone could say 1+1=2 then contradict that statement 500 pages later, it doesn't meant its right. If you say we live in a world of ideas and that they exist pre-epistemically, then you are presupposing kant's transcendental logic. This is obvious even to the most illiterate toddler. Ideas exist outside the mind, we capture them and form concepts. This is kant's metaphysics through and through even if the ideas are not noumena themselves, they might as well be since they are pre-epistemic.
>>23312553>What peek? Someone could say 1+1=2 then contradict that statement 500 pages laterPeirce never retracted his rejection of the phenomena-noumena distinction. >If you say we live in a world of ideas and that they exist pre-epistemically, then you are presupposing kant's transcendental logic. This isn't what Kant said either, I can't believe I let you ramble on this long without stopping you.I'm not going to engage with you any longer until you get a remedial education. With BOOKS. Have a good one.
>>23312566Run you inconsistent peirce fag, maybe his ideas might finally catch up with you.
>>23312566>Peirce rejected phenomena-noumena distinction but constructs a metaphysics that is eerily similar in his quality to concept/object model.Are you faggots unable to think for yourselves? Just because someone says something doesn't mean its right. You have to analyze whether what they say makes sense. Why are you pedantic midwit faggots unable to think for yourselves, everything you know comes from what someone said or wrote instead of what you think.
>>23312695Okay, then what is Peirce's noumena then, and why is ackshually *not* a split from phenomena, contra to Peirce's claims? Argue that, and cite your sources. >protip: cite Peirce directly, and not Wikipedia or a poorly written /lit/post that somehow still eludes your understandingI know that second criterion might be a little difficult for you.
>>23312718Like i said many times and i don't have to cite this, you admitted that ideas exist outside the mind, outside our knowledge, these then are taken up by the mind to form concepts/objects of the world around us. You said this not me, you even made a gif here >>23312522.
>>23312729Yeah, I did (for some reason this bothers you a lot, even though I've *never* claimed otherwise). The phenomena are the noumena, and vice versa. There is no distinction. Also, I just copied and pasted that from like the first Google image result I found. I didn't make it for you. Don't pretend for a second that you've given me a reason to invest anything beyond than stringing together some words at a 6th grade reading level for you. I hardly even know why I'm arguing with you. You're clearly not even bothering to read what I'm saying, let alone the author we're talking about, and you clearly don't care to read deeply into the topic. Nor do you have any sort of embarrassment when you make wild claims about a philosopher which happen to be the exact opposite of what the philosopher claimed (like when I posted that gif). You're literally a spitting image of an archetype of one of the worst posters which browse this forum: an obstinate, knuckle-dragging moron who is equally as pompous as he is illiterate. Yet you're too fucking stupid to understand just how fucking stupid you are. Why the hell do you even concern yourself with these problems? They're clearly above your capabilities. It's an utter waste of your time, and I wouldn't subject myself to replying to you and potentially raising my blood pressure if it didn't guarantee that my thread might stick around on the catalogue long enough. You know, long enough for an actual thoughtful and educated person who has something to teach me to stumble upon this thread.
>>23311854What kind of concept do you refer to? Hegel's Concept isn't person-centric, from what I understand.
>>23312746So you wrote a 500 word essay attacking me instead of using your superior intellect to expound on your position. You are too stupid to think for yourself so you fall back on what some philosopher wrote and when someone else sees a problem with it, you sperg out like the midwit that you are. No peirce did not mean it like that, he wrote this, etc You are literally incapable of stepping out of his shadow or arguing logically about what he wrote, he could have written that pink cows live on the moon and you would have found a reason to disagree with me, that is how the lot of you sound. If he wrote it, its right, if someone feels different, he didn't write it and therefore its wrong.
>>23312754>instead of using your superior intellect to expound on your position.You're clearly too stupid and ignorant for me to waste my time doing it. But you're haughty enough for me to enjoy taking you down a few pegs. I'll enjoy spending... 250? 271 words by my count doing it. I type at about ~130 wpm so it's no sweat off my back.>You are too stupid to think for yourself so you fall back on what some philosopher wrote and when someone else sees a problem with it, you sperg out like the midwit that you are. No peirce did not mean it like that, he wrote this, etc You are literally incapable of stepping out of his shadow or arguing logically about what he wrote, he could have written that pink cows live on the moon and you would have found a reason to disagree with me, that is how the lot of you sound.Dude, shut the fuck up already. You think you're bright by throwing out some truisms, but you literally have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even know if you're engaging with Peirce's thought as presented by me because you haven't read the guy *at all*, and it's beyond glaringly obvious. It's the bare truth.I could be regurgitating some random schizo on /x/ and you'd be none the wiser. Stop pretending that you're capable of having a serious conversation on Peirce because you're not. Nor do you want to.
>>23312763Another essay that says absolutely nothing. Peirce daddy is dissapointed, did he tell you i come from x, is that why it stings so much? I suppose he organizes your day, and tells you what to eat. You are the sort of faggot that gets advice from the autobiographies and letters of writers you admire, apes their fashion, manner of dressing and thinks of themselves as cultured and intellectual. I am sorry i hurt your peirce sensibilities.
>>23312770Wait, I think I recognize you.lol
>>23312773Good for you, now we can continue our discussion from where we last left off.
>>23312777Sure, on me offering you tutoring services. I'll have you know that my rates are competitive.
>>23312783I don't need them, you should instead be attending my school, I don't charge anything for my skepticism.
>>23312793You absolutely are in dire need of them. I'm not willing to talk to you unless I'm getting paid well for it, especially to compensate for the headache of talking to a dense person. Let me know when you reconsider.
>>23312802Why would i take lessons from a faggot who can't handle skepticism from an allegedly dense person. Every response you give is peirce didn't say this or that, like a 12 year girl who is too afraid to hang out because mother said not to play with boys. You are an intellectual toddler who can't handle their beloved ideas being turned upside down or sideways, no, you insist, they must remain upright, just the way i found them.
>>23312802And the whole reason why peirce's metaphysics, like kant is problematic is because he is trying to make assumptions about pre-epistemic objects. He like Kant couldn't escape from this. We can argue all day about whether they are similar, but this point is all it boils down to.
>>23312835>problematic is because he is trying to make assumptions about pre-epistemic objectsHe circumvents this with the pragmatic maxim
>>23312835What are you on about? This makes no sense. What in Kant refers to this pre-epistemic status of objects? We couldn’t even cognize it as a representation having a noumenal counterpart. A pre-epistemic object would be literally nothing.
>>23312859>pragmatic maximThis sounds like popper's falsification. Popper failed to show how abduction resolves hume's problem of induction. In any case, these propositions are not new, Kant adds space and time--inductive inferences, to his aristotelian logic to bridge his metaphysics to the real world, hegel uses the dialectic to try and move away from traditional logic to a historically progressive one. These are all variants of induction that seem to assume hume doesn't exist. They are just darting across his porch ignoring his ever peeping eye.
>>23313369nigga you're just saying random shit, nothing you said has anything to do with the pragmatic maxim.
>>23313369>This sounds like popper's falsification.explain
>>23312812>Every response you give is peirce didn't say this or thathave you considered that maybe that's the appropriate reply to give to a random /lit/ nigga who doesn't read? whats the point wasting your breath attacking a guy's views when you haven't even read his work? you dont even know what you're attacking.
>>23313369>Popper failed to showIf a theory works to predict the future, then you contend the theory until it’s disproven or a better one (better at predicting and describing the future) replaces the older theory. It’s a self referencing theory. The cool thing about this is it’s how everyone lives, even Hume. To reject the notion is to be a hypocrite. Like a solipsist that says “I’ll just treat people as if they have agency because it’s easier for me.”
>>23314060What is the pragmatic maxim if i may ask since you think i don't understand it well enough?>>23314434Popper proposed falsifying scientific theories over and over again to test their soundness so that a theory becomes accepted once it corresponds with reality well enough for scientific consensus.>>23314443What's the point of responding to my skepticism if you think I don't understand him? If you respond to my post about pre-epistemic objects with something like pragmatic maxim, and then i respond to that, do you keep responding with better refutations or is it my fault that you get frustrated when i tear your assumptions apart?>>23315244I am not rejecting anything, I am clearly showing a trend of similar hypothesization in these philosophers. Traditional logic fails to explain their metaphysics, then they come up with some inductive logic to bridge it to the real world, its a fairly common intervention.
>>23305992> we fail all the above in Academia and the dregs-remenant of the quasi-para-literate-(re)public of letters thanks to seventy years of terminal boomerist 'end of history' triumphalism embezzling the Cold War 'Peace Dividend' spiking the proverbial football in their own world historic endzone, so to speak.Hahahahahaha I have no fucking idea what this meansAnd the fucking censored schizobabble hahahahahaha this is my favorite post I can’t even look at it without dying of laughter it’s so nonsensical>inb4 APODEXIS -- what stands-forth of its own accord regardless of obvservationEmanation therefrom as Momente of the Absolute [viz. APEIRON/Monad] settling in the point-form (KHORA)
>>23315423>What's the point of responding to my skepticism if you think I don't understand him?to point out that your skepticism isn't founded on anything at all. you have to encounter something in at least its faintest form, e.g. a hypothetical, to be skeptical of it. you haven't. you're not even being skeptical of Peirce because you don't know what Peirce is saying because you haven't read him. >if you respond to my post about pre-epistemic objects with something like pragmatic maximnigger that's a different guy, multiple people are calling you retarded in this thread because you've clearly haven't done your homework
>>23315672My skepticism is clearly founded on the responses you give. I have not claimed that I am a peirce expert as all you peirce fags assume. I don't understand where this new surprise comes from. You should blame your poor understanding of peirce and skepticism in general. Just because he said something doesn't mean its true. You post what he said and I point that out. Anyone who understands logic can do this, as socrates famously did.
>>23315701The problem was that you kept failing at basic reading comprehension and insisted that everybody else was the problem. You also started to make claims about Peirce's work unrelated to what I was saying which were also factually wrong, so there's another lie you've been caught in right there. Nobody is claiming that everything he said is correct either.
Read Claude Shannon instead.
>>23315713No, the problem is you peirce fags have a different explanation for the same thing, one says qualities do not exist outside the brain, another says they do, then the other responds to my conversation with another, how the fuck am i supposed to know who i am talking to and whether the narrative is coherent. And if it wasn't correct, why the fuck are you peirce fags getting so angry when i point out something?
>>23315723>one says qualities do not exist outside the brainnigga who even said that?>why the fuck are you peirce fags getting so angry when i point out something?because you don't do your homework. you're not even getting stuck on the difficult, ground-breaking, and/or obscure shit. you're stuck at square one and thinking that you're smarter than everybody else for it. it's textbook stupidity.
>>23315766Do your homework and read the thread again, I am not going to spoonfeed someone who hops on the bandwagon when he has only read the last 10 posts.
>>23315833Nigger.
>>23315833So you're just making more shit up now huh?
>>23316191Yes, are you frustrated, why do you keep replying if you are? I am still not going to spoonfeed you.
>>23316199Are you comparing your /lit/posts to the greatest philosophers who have ever lived? No wonder you're all fucked up lol.
