Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
System of Citation
Introduction
Notes
References
Introduction
self-co~li~nurrion"
. . -.. .- .
(MS 619, 8).
. .. once i n t e n s e....-.-.
it is possible that his Zstinctive
--
l y n g. and currently unfashionable. Even so,
.. --- .-- c o n c e p t ~ ---o
--~n
--. T ~ ~ l o s o p h i c a l (
12:c acr, in efkct, a n interesting explanation of this personal inquiry more clearly reveals the way to a recovery of philosophy
~xopen"t\: 1\'hc11I'eirce attempts to capture the cast of' Alfred than any other contemporary conception. As Alfred North
Kus5rll \\:i;llilrii niinrl. Because of Wallace's disposition to express
Whitehead recognized, "philosophy is not-or at least. should -. . ..
hitnsell'in 11l;ll)san(\ diagrams, Peirce felt inclined to classifv hirn not ,be-a ferocious.db-ate between irritable professors" (1937,
as ;I rn;~tliel~li~tical thinker. But, to think in anv manner (mathe- 125). However, thisis-precisely what it still too often is.'Perhaps,
.. . ._
m;~ticalor otlier~visc)is to participate - in a...process analogous to
~ --_------__
;~ - r- -~ i again,
st. tliinks ;~l)o~!tpic.t~!!:es~,nti visual images, and largely
. . .~
__
tion of p h_i.-l o s o p ~ a saasciignce. ~ < w e v e r ,this very conception
i l l pic.t~~rc'd I)il.;:\,lGle thc ktusiciatl thinks ahouf. and in, tones. is in o u r time likely to pose an obstacle to an appreciation o f
. ..-- ---1-.---
I;inall\: t h r niatlie~n:~ticianclothes his thought in men-&I Peirce's contributions, for the v._ i e ~ that
l philosophy
. .-.- ought to aspire
7--- ....
tli;~gl:;uns.which csllil)lt regularities and analogies
~
- .. ~-- of
~.
abstmTt to the status of a science-is d e n by many tohave ~ e 3 - t ~ i ; r o u ' g h l y ~
li;;rn.; illlnos~quite h-cc f'roun the feelings that would acc-om- expG -.. d ~ d ~ ( eRorty
R, 1979; also 1982).To make matters even more
~XIII!' 1-(';11 ~)crc.cl>tiorls. A pu-son who from childhoocl 11as difficult, ~ e i - r c econceived philosophy .. - - be systematic
to
___d-__ - as wellas
l i ; ~ l ) i t ~ ~ n~i~ntle
ll\ his rcllcctions hy experimenting upon men- scientific; indeed, in his own mind. these were inseparable aspects
ti11 tli;~gl';~nls. \\.ill o~.clir~;~l-ilylack the readiness in conversation o f z adequate notion of philosophical inquiry. T h e various
t h ; ~ t I)clor,qs to 011c \\.lie i~l\r;iystlio~ghtin words, a n d will
.. - . ... -- - --- - - -- sciences are not simply a random collection of separate pursuits;
Introdurtzon xvii
it? of' intellectuals today, the will-tp_a_pystem represents, at best, cipally heuristic; they show the direction in which a path of inquiry
"a lack of integrity" (Niet~sche1889 [196H], 25) and, at worst, a might be pushed and the sources by which the footsteps of an
\sill to donlinatr- indeed to terroriw. In the words of Lyotard, inquirer might be illulninated. Thus, judging Peirce in terms of
the criterion he niost prized, we are obliged to say: If there is any
'l'he r~inctcenthand twentieth centurieshave_givenus as much value to what Peirce has written, it resides in the power of these
terror- i ~ swe can take. We have paid a high e~i%ughpiice for writings to op_en_fiel_ds ---of inquiry
~-~- and, once having opened these
the r~ostalgi;iof'the whole and the one, for the reconciliatio~l fields, to offer assistance on how to cultivate the areas. As Peirce
of'the concept ; I J I ~the sensible, of the transparent anrl the corn.
himself noted, hiswritings are "meant . for people _-
who roanl to
rnunical)le experience. [Jr~derthe general demand for slacken- , .
But. insofill- assuch assumptions are made today, there is a of philosophical inquiry was due to the fact that philosophy "has :
contempornr). ol~stacleto attaining an interior understanding of been pursued by men who have not been nurtured in tlissecting-
Peircc's philosopIiic;~lproject -for he desired to be both systematic rooms and other laboratories, and who consequently have not ,'
- .~
' and sciel~tific. I'eirce confessed in a letter td~ames:~luralisln"does been animated
_. ._- - by.t_het~~scientif'c~os; but who have on the '
not siltisfi,~ith . . her ~nj~.l,:ild o r my heart'' (8.262; 1F05).Yei.ill
~
contrary come . .- fi-om
~ - theological
- - A -. -- ..- -
seminaries, and have conse- ,
:\nottier Iettcl- to this same person, he acknowledged his debt to quently been inflamet1,-with a-Pesire-_._ to anlend the lives of
-- - - - - .
'
Sclielling. noting: "one thing I admire-about 11imFchellingl.i~ themselves ancl others, - a spirit no doubt more important than
.
liis fi-eetloni t'rorn the tran~nlelsof system, and his holding hirnself the love of science, for men in average situations, but radically
.-... -.. . - - -. - -~
uncom~nittedr o ar1~.pre\~.ious.utterance. In that, he is like a scien- unfitting then1 for the task of scientific investigation" (1.620).
tific rlian" (I'crr~.1935, vol. 2, 415-16). Accordingly, the distinction between laboratory- and serninarv
1:inally i t is all too easy for those who have studied inten- trained philosophers rests not so much on where a person is
si\,ely the writings o f Peirce to get so caught u p in his "system" educated as on what a person loves. Thinkers w11n-- love only the
tllat they come to see it :IS a place in which to dwell rather than truth already i n - t l w i ~ p---___-.
o s s e s s i o nand, thus, conreive their task
:I point fi-on1which to proceed. Nevertheless, Peirce's outlines for . -
,-~ __
as isteadfast and uncomp~ornisi~g_defP~ise
-..--- of their property
21 c:l;tssification of'tllc sciences were not intended as a shelterfrom would count for Peirce as ser~iinar): .philosophers.
~_ In contrast,
- .
eitller the rc)ugh a n d t r ~ ~ i ~ lof > lordinary
e experience or the twists thinkers who 1ove:qbove - - -all- -else- - the
- t r ~ t K y - ~ t _ tbe
o d.isc_o~eretl
a n d tlll.ns o f s ~ i ~ ~ l t itliscovery;
fic they were intended as aids to and, hence. envision their role to be that of a painstaking a-;id
inql~ir!: J I I S I;IS l'circe thought that the most unpardonable cooperative inqui~:er \\;auld count for Peirce as laboratory \
ir~tclIcctrr;~l sin n;is to I)loc-k. the road of inquiry (1.135),Ti?~tliought
~
phi16;ophers. It sl~ouldbe n o surprise then (as Kcnnetli 1,;line '
th;~!;111lo11g t I i ( . rllost p~-ofitiiI)le int~liecti1~sl~~~o1.k was to map the Ketner points out) that "Persons wlin ha\,e had no actual sig-
l);ttl~s of' i11(111ir.\,((.I: Iicnt I!)S7. 1 7-19). FIis outlines for- a classifica- nificant experiences ~ v i t laboratol-y
l~ rnetllods have ;I Il;11itlic;11>
In,troduct ion x \I
'['lie first o f these is the d e n s i ~ ~ Y e i r r eprose. 's Many naturally infer that he lacks talent for speech when he o~llylacks
-_.
intelligent persons of' good will have experienced great difficulty
-I-.
".l'h(~)r~gtlt, savs .
- - . ... ..
the give-antl-take of'conyersation. Early in his career, h e noted:
.. 1'TLito. is-a .silent
-
c a t u r a l fac-
tors.cohtr'ibute to the individualistic and antagonistic character
ni~ecl.I bclie\:e, hirlierto" (W 2: 172; 1868). 'Then, late in his life, of philosophical discourse; even so, historical, and cultural forces
11.1
he wrote: "It citnllot I>e_.toooften repeated._th_at-all. --
thaught is also promptqhilosophy.to~.bccome-a~,m_C~re,~~nn~o~~al
. . and-.
, ~.-
cli:tlogue" ( M S 283. .5(i [variant]; 1905). ..-
And, in fact? he did not cooperative endeavor.
;
hesititre to rc'peat this assertion countless times. O n e such occa-
-. -.. .--.-.....- .----- I noted earlier that Peirce was, in principle, committed to. ~.
~ i o n~\.as;I ~.e\,ic~\f o f a I,iog~.itphy of' Wallace. Here, he stated:
sacrificing literary elegance .- . . . for. . scientific precision. In practice,
....
i l l ~>iccr~~.ctl 1)ils: \\,liilc thc ~nusicia~~ thinks'a6bu~~. and in, tones. is in our time likely to pose an obstacle to an appreciation o f ;
,.--.
-----
I.'i~l:rlly. thc ni;~tliemi~tician clothes his thought in rnen-kl Peirce's contributions, for the view that philosophy ought to aspire . .
cli;:lg~:;uns.
7 -- - -~ .. ~..
\vllicli csll~~?l.egrtlaritiesand analogies of ahstr~rf
-
to the status
. ~. of a ~cience-is tjk&kj;mahy tohave E~i---fEh?oughly -- . .-.
to overcome in achieving an understanding of Peirce's work" The two minds must be capable of co11ag to a n ~~ntlerstanding '
(19831). 81 11. 24). and_-- of observing when it is reached. 'l'his supjoses a power - - of
So m r ~ c lthen, ~ . tor those aspects of Peirce's style that are likely deliberate self-controlled thinking. Now nothillg can bccon-
to erect stumlAing blocks for many contemporary readers. In addi- - --
specific tliscussions of'tlle .self. A number of commentators appear should have a power of self-observation. Moreover, controxup-
to think tililt these disc~issionsd o not add u p to a theory of the poses a capacity in that which is to be controlled - of acting in!,
w - - ,
accordance
- .---.- with definite
._- general t e n d e n w f a tolerably stable! -.. .
self; but even if they do, this theory is woefully inadequate. Indeed,
naLu,u_ye,which impl~esa reality in this governing principle. But
I'eirce is h-equrntly taken to have expressed wildly inconsistent these habits. . .must be capable of being modified according
a n d sin~plywilt1 views about the nature a n d status of the self. In to some ideal in the mind of the controlling agent: and this
t';lct. his treatment of.this topic is taken to he, even by sympathetic controlling agent is to be the very same as the agent controlled,
. ..
ant1 i ~ ~ t i ~ r ncommentators
~eci (e.g., ~ a n l e ~" h o n ~ i s and' o n ~ichard the control
- extending even to the modes of control --
themselves,
Rcrnsrcin). tlir tveakest part of his erltire,philosophy. In Chapter ___-
since we suppose that the interpreter-minzunder the guidance
Forr~;I shi~llcsplic:itly defend Peirce against the specific charges --- ---discusses the---rationale
of the Graphist-mind ----. of logic
--.- itself. E k -
of rllcsc (ilnd othei.) critics. ing all these factors into account, we should corne to the same
conclusion that common-sense would have jumped to at the
Soulcn.h;lt late i l l his life, Peirce came to recognize the true
outset; namely, that the Graphist-mind
-. and interpreter-mind
-- ----
sigr~ifiril~lrc of' wh;tt h e called the normative sciences (cf. Potter must have all the characters of __ personal i~itellects~~p_c)s~sse_c!~~~_f~-
I!lfi7. 3: I < ~ - I II!)H'i,
~ 15). Individually, these sciences are aesthetics,
----__--_CI
01'1-e;rsoj~i~rg
.-
~ i .n. g. . - - the form o f sem~osis
( ~ - c ; ~ s o ~itsell'lzeing _-__- in ~ r h i c h
- -
-,/ co,qito is o n e of the important respects in which Peirce's semiotic
.-
1'eirc.c \ ~ ; I S~ ~ l o(leeply st i~~terested),
.---------
he argues that self-qovernance
.'
-
visTon is superior__to the antihumanist orientation of Saussure's
-.
--
-
-
._
-