Comments on: Qualia, Quale and Peirce http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2008/04/29/qualia-quale-and-peirce/ Musings on Science, Religion and Philosophy Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:57:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Clark Goble http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2008/04/29/qualia-quale-and-peirce/comment-page-1/#comment-399 Clark Goble Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:53:26 +0000 http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/?p=188#comment-399 Central to everything Peirce did were his categories of 1stness, 2cdness, and 3rdness. These are basically anything considered in terms of unity, difference or mediation. They apply to logic (logic with one element, two elements or three elements), phenomenology, and pretty much everything else. Originally he developed them while reading Kant (who had 12 categories). While much of what he did was focused on logic his later work was focused on general semiotics and phenomenology. James adopted a lot of Peirce's thought but never really got into the logic or the categories. But without that categorical understanding one loses a lot of the rigour of how to conceive of philosophy and science. To add you might find <a href="http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/vila/newway.htm" rel="nofollow">this paper on Peirce and phenomenology</a> rather interesting. I'd linked to it on the sidebar last week. It probably does a better job than most at explaining the categories. Central to everything Peirce did were his categories of 1stness, 2cdness, and 3rdness. These are basically anything considered in terms of unity, difference or mediation. They apply to logic (logic with one element, two elements or three elements), phenomenology, and pretty much everything else. Originally he developed them while reading Kant (who had 12 categories). While much of what he did was focused on logic his later work was focused on general semiotics and phenomenology.

James adopted a lot of Peirce’s thought but never really got into the logic or the categories. But without that categorical understanding one loses a lot of the rigour of how to conceive of philosophy and science.

To add you might find this paper on Peirce and phenomenology rather interesting. I’d linked to it on the sidebar last week. It probably does a better job than most at explaining the categories.

]]> By: Lincoln Cannon http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2008/04/29/qualia-quale-and-peirce/comment-page-1/#comment-398 Lincoln Cannon Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:30:21 +0000 http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/?p=188#comment-398 Hi Clark. You wrote: ". . . and thirdness which is phenomena in relation to two things often considered as phenomena in terms of signs or as mediated. Miss that aspect of Peircean pragmatism and you might as well be reading William James. (grin)" I've read and enjoyed much of James' work, but am not very familiar with Peirce's work. Would you elaborate a bit on this distinction you've drawn? I didn't follow. Thanks. Hi Clark.

You wrote: “. . . and thirdness which is phenomena in relation to two things often considered as phenomena in terms of signs or as mediated. Miss that aspect of Peircean pragmatism and you might as well be reading William James. (grin)”

I’ve read and enjoyed much of James’ work, but am not very familiar with Peirce’s work. Would you elaborate a bit on this distinction you’ve drawn? I didn’t follow. Thanks.

]]>