The rest of what you've described of Peirce's sounds like an epistemology. — Pfhorrest
people here have called my approach "architectonic", a word I wasn't previously very familiar with, — Pfhorrest
One of the amazing things about ideas though, especially philosophical systems, is that they are perspectival; every well thought out idea is a perspective on the world and generates a view on other ideas connected to it. — fdrake
I don't believe that a philosophy can ever transcend that variation in connectivity; we'd just end up with the same problem but applied to metaphilosophical theses, and a regress occurs. For that reason, being truthful, honest, precocious, exploratory and recognising limitation and fallibility is much more important than doctrine; care how you generate your perspective and the rest will take care of itself. — fdrake
How is an OP on the architectonic structure of theories not an epistemological question? — apokrisis
Or if your favorite philosopher does likewise...... — Pfhorrest
Yeah - the functioning, operation, usage is shown, not said, as Witty might say; and the "architectonic" - talking, that is, discursively reasoning, "about reasoning" is (TLP-like) nonsense? The distinction is, however, pertinent.Problem being, of course, the event of human reason doesn’t use the very principles employed in the understanding of its use. The operation of reason is not the same as talking about the operation of reason. Talking about it requires the architectonic, the functioning itself, does not. If this were not the case, philosophy in general, and epistemological metaphysics in particular, would not be speculative, which is to say, how we think, and therefore how we philosophize, would demonstrable with apodeictic certainty by means of the parameters of physical science, which, of course, is very far from being the case, to date. — Mww
discursively reasoning, "about reasoning" is (TLP-like) nonsense? — 180 Proof
In my experience, when people refer to Peirce's philosophy as "architectonic," they mean it in roughly the latter sense. IEP has a pretty good summary article on "Charles Sanders Peirce: Architectonic Philosophy" here.Architectonic is about a general functional structure to the act of inquiry, not describing the way the flow of human inquiry then breaks up into reasonably distinct domains. — apokrisis
Peirce's overall system of thought is non-foundationalist, so he does not really have a "first philosophy" in the sense of a set of premisses from which all his other positions follow. Rather than organized bodies of knowledge, he classifies the various sciences as communities of inquiry, arranging them such that each one depends on those preceding it for its principles and on those following it for its data. Perhaps most notably, "Metaphysics consists in the acceptance of logical principles not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of being."I suppose one could approach all of philosophy through epistemology, placing it as their “first philosophy”, but that seems to me like merely one perspective one could take on the interrelationships of different subtopics — Pfhorrest
I guess I must not have understood the end of your first post. Rereading it now I’m still not following. You’re saying you’re uninterested in architectonics? But more interested in... what, and why? — Pfhorrest
The first thing to clarify is that the sub-ordinacy of philosophy to mathematics, or metaphysics to phenomenology, is not sub-ordinacy in the sense of embeddedness, i.e., philosophy is not a sub-branch of mathematics. Of course, embedded sub-ordinacy does occur in Peirce’s classification where, for instance, aesthetics is a sub-branch of Normative Science, just as ethics and logic are. However, ethics and logic are not sub-branches of aesthetics, even though they are sub-ordinate to it. So, what is the nature of the non-embedded sub-ordinacy of, say, philosophy to mathematics?
Philosophy is divided into three orders: phenomenology, or the science of how things appear to us; the normative sciences, which study how we ought to act; and metaphysics, the study of what is real.
But a sense can be made of the hierarchy IEP describes where maths is the most general discipline in terms of being the most abstract level of rationalisation and philosophy is a concrete expression of that rationalising habit. We are in the realm of Platonic forms, but moving towards engagement with the world. Then science is the habit of rationalisation properly engaged with the world as empirical knowledge creation. — apokrisis
And then east/west is the flip between the objective and the subjective - the world and the mind — apokrisis
... whereas logic is more mathematical, concerning itself with the form and structure of the argument and appealing more impersonally to dispassionate thought, rhetoric as I would characterize it is more artistic, concerning itself with the style and presentation of the argument and appealing more personally to passions and feelings ... when I speak of rhetoric, I am speaking of the packaging and delivery of speech-acts, as differentiated from the contents and structure thereof [which I cover under logic]
[...]
logic and rhetoric as complimentary to each other, not in competition. I like to use an analogy of prescribing someone medicine: the actual medicinal content is most important of course, but you stand a much better chance of getting someone to actually swallow that content if it's packaged in a small, smooth, sweet-tasting pill than if it's packaged in a big, jagged, bitter pill. In this analogy, the medicinal content of the pill is the logical, rational content of a speech-act, while the size, texture, and flavor of the pill is the rhetorical packaging and delivery of the speech-act. It is of course important that the "medicine" (logic) be right, but it's just as important that the "pill" (rhetoric) be such that people will actually swallow it.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) — SophistiCat
To stress the qualities of the philosophical mind — apokrisis
It's not world on the left, mind on the right, but mind-to-world on the left and world-to-mind on the right. — Pfhorrest
My approach to dichotomies treats them as the mutual limits on possibility so you are always talking about relative states of affairs. So "world" and "mind" are just complementary bounds on being. As humans, we have to develop a habit of reality modelling where our consciousness feels sharply divided into "a world" that then has an "us" in it - the "experiencing ego".
So the world becomes defined as that part of being which has the least of that us-ness. And the us is the part which has the least degree of the world. The fact of that construction is shown by something as simple as finding your arm is dead after you slept on it.
My reading of your diagram followed this pragmatic logic. We have to construct "the world" to construct our "selves". And vice versa. It is a two way psychic street. This contrast with Cartesian dualism where both world and mind are granted substantive reality. It is instead the basis of what Peirce called his objective idealism. Or Kant, his transcendentalism. (If you ignore the lingering religious leanings of both of those two.)
So I see your whole map as a map of the pragmatic effort to construct the reality of being. It is not about the Cartesian project of a mind-soul that knows the world in a passive but directly perceiving way. It is a pragmatic Peircean consciousness where we are refining the intellectual tools to work on both sides of this act of co-construction. One side of the knowledge map is focused on technical control over the appearance of the world. The other is focused on the technology for the making of a complex modern selfhood.
It may or may not be what you had in mind explicitly. But it is what jumps out for me. — apokrisis
And I've rarely seen something that makes as much sense. Is this diagram something you have published or planned to? — apokrisis
So maybe those two segments should be same sized - mirror images.
And maybe you are saying that dynamics/calculus are geometry plus time, while harmonics/trigonometry are algebra plus space? So rather than four quadrants, you have two halves with their subset extensions.
And does arts chop up the same way? — apokrisis
On logic vs rhetoric, what I think the diagram gets right is that language is conventionally divided up into the three things of syntax, semantics and pragmatics. So it is neat that logic is syntax/semantics - the technology of argumentation with the least possible constraint in terms of pragmatic embeddedness, while rhetoric can be defined in contrary fashion as the technology of argumentation with the least possible constraint in terms of syntactical correctness.
Was that a lucky accident or your conscious intention there? — apokrisis
Another random point is that Maslow's psychological hierarchy of needs could be a useful way to structure the human side of the equation - the hierarchy that goes from basic survival needs to self-actualisation. Securing the physics of life - energy and integrity - and then continuing towards the sociology of free individual action.
That might reorder the trades hexagon, for example. Or the ethical sciences. It seems to match the sciences hierarchy already. — apokrisis
In the process of developing my Enformationism worldview, I realized that it entailed a principle that many people would find absurd or incommensurable, because it denies that humans have access to absolute Truth on any topic. I call it the BothAnd Principle.In this thread I'm interested to hear if other people have their own core principles that they think entail all of their positions on all of the different philosophical sub-questions, and if they think that there are common errors underlying all of the positions that they think are wrong. — Pfhorrest
I would really love to hear you take on my whole book — Pfhorrest
...that there are not so much different kinds of properties, much less different kinds of stuff, as there are what could crudely be called mental and material ways of looking at the same properties and the same objects, that are essentially both mind-like and matter-like in different ways, that distinction no longer really properly applying when we really get down to the details.
http://www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/ontology.php
Even Whitehead is part of the problem, not part of the solution — apokrisis
The ultimate ontology I have is one of a network of interactions which are simultaneously phenomenal experiences of and also physical behaviors of objects that are also all subjects (as covered more in the essay On the Mind) that only exist as nodes in that network, defined entirely by the interactions/experiences/behaviors they take part in. — Pfhorrest
The interactions/experiences/behaviors are the most concrete things in existence, and the objects/subjects they are of are abstract constructions whose existence is like that of numbers and other abstract entities (as covered more in the essay on Logic and Mathematics). — Pfhorrest
Can you elaborate on this? Because on my understanding of Whitehead, his view is quite similar both to mine and to what I gather is yours. — Pfhorrest
Another random point is that Maslow's psychological hierarchy of needs could be a useful way to structure the human side of the equation - the hierarchy that goes from basic survival needs to self-actualisation. — apokrisis
Panpsychism stays stuck in Cartesian dualism because it accepts mind and matter as categories of substantial being ... with no actual necessary connection, just a pair of modes. — apokrisis
My BothAnd Blog presents many applications of the BA Principle. Yet I doubt you want to read all 107 essays. Those posts cover most of the categories you mentioned, and especially Religion. But here are a couple that discuss the BA approach to polarized Politics :Can you give a few examples of views on different subjects that your BothAnd principle entails, e.g. the kinds of subjects I gave examples of in the other thread (ontology, epistemology, philosophy of mind, will, ethics, politics, etc). — Pfhorrest
I think hylomorphic dualism - dualism of matter and form - would be more satisfactory from your viewpoint, — Wayfarer
- last year I discovered an interesting paper by Marcello Barbieri, stating why he had resigned as Editor of the Biosemiosis - because he couldn't agree with the 'Piercian' orientation of biosemiotics. — Wayfarer
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.