That problem was solved by semiotics. Peircean semiotics shows how the world can be divided into matter and symbol, and then interact and develop as a result of its causality being divided in this very fashion. — apokrisis
The big problem for naturalism was doing justice to the apparent dualism that divides minds and worlds, top-down formal and final causes and bottom-up material and efficient causes. — apokrisis
Yet although you can draw on Hegel and Pierce for elements of naturalism, I think both were actually 'romantic dualists' in some respects (at least, according to your classification, although I don't think that they would have used the terminology themselves): — Wayfarer
The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws. C.S. Peirce
Absolute idealism is an ontologically monistic philosophy chiefly associated with G. W. F. Hegel and Friedrich Schelling, both German idealist philosophers of the 19th century, Josiah Royce, an American philosopher, and others, but, in its essentials, the product of Hegel. It is Hegel's account of how being is ultimately comprehensible as an all-inclusive whole.
The latter is clearly descended from the (neo)platonic conception of 'the One' in my view (albeit considerably elaborated and re-interpreted by Hegel.) — Wayfarer
Aristotle was a naturalist - many would say the first! - but he also argued for a first cause or unmoved mover, etc, which was an essential premise of his philosophy. — Wayfarer
Semiosis certainly does offer a non-reductionist account of the processes of life, but at the same time, I don't think it recognizes that behind the idea of the sign an implicit idealism. — Wayfarer
And so he did draw the natural conclusion that intelligibility was itself the driving principle of developed existence. If you have a model of the mind, it is also going to be a model of the world, as the same generic semiotic principles describe self-organisation of any possible kind. — apokrisis
They both had their mushy edges being people of their times. But if we pay attention to the general logic of nature they were talking about, then we are on solid ground. — Apokrisis
Existence does that. — TheWillowOfDarkness
This is the problem with Peirce. He puts all possible self-orgainsation into the principle of our minds, as if we new everything about the world by knowing a few general principles. Rather than putting models and meaning in the world, giving each state of the world its specific meaning which we might or might not know, he insists what we know must be the extent of the world. — TheWillowOfDarkness
By nothing. To exist is to be oneself, not some other means. A logical distinction which is given not by anything else, not by any idea about what is in the world, not even by a form. The difficulty in coming up with a set of principles or forms which defines the extent of a person, object or object is because self is an infinite expression, a nothingness in empirical terms, which always defines distinction in form.How does existence do this? By power ontology, teleology, tychism, etc? — darthbarracuda
Peirce was basically an idealist - didn't he think matter was "condensed" mind?
It's why it rubs me the wrong way when people believe in an objective, unknowable noumenon "just to say they're realists". It's as if it's just slapped in their in order to avoid being called a full-fledged idealist. — darthbarracuda
Peirce was basically an idealist - didn't he think matter was "condensed" mind? — darthbarracuda
The psychologists say that consciousness is the essential attribute of mind; and that purpose is only a special modification. I hold that purpose, or rather, final causation, of which purpose is the conscious modification, is the essential subect of psychologists’ own studies; and that consciousness is a special, and not a universal accompaniment of mind. (7. 366).
It's why it rubs me the wrong way when people believe in an objective, unknowable noumenon "just to say they're realists". It's as if it's just slapped in their in order to avoid being called a full-fledged idealist. — darthbarracuda
And there you go. You tell me you don't intend to ad hom me and then repeat the ad hom.
Again, if you dispute aspects of my interpretation, and can back it up, then that would make for an interesting discussion. Instead you just make lazy dismissals with no substance. And get annoyed because I tell you that you are being lazy. — apokrisis
Certainly the universe in which the Greek lived was not only different from ours but even, in several respects, incommensurable with it. And yet we have a right to claim that we belong to a different stage of the same civilization. For certain essential fictions created by the Greeks still ordain our vision of the real....[but] as soon as we leave the domain of our own civilization, the differences [in views of reality] become striking....and may concern even the most fundamental categories... — Bachtin
Thanks for your explanation mcdoodle, it seems then that we mostly agree, but use different terminology; what you call "metaphysical naturalism" I would call 'scientism'.
Would you go as far as to say, though, that science has nothing interesting to tell us about ourselves? — John
That is exactly what I mean when I say you're redacting out some aspects of their thinking, so as to incorporate the aspects of it are useful for your approach. — Wayfarer
(B) the psychical law as derived and special, the physical law alone as
primordial, which is materialism; or,
(C) the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law alone as
primordial, which is idealism. (EP1 292).
Now this immanent holism then treads on the toes of theistic and transcendental metaphysics - the same dualism and romanticism that informs the (muddled) Continental conception of the world — apokrisis
My beef with romanticism is when it is treated as a model of rational things - in particular, a model of human psychology or society. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.