|
View Poll Results: Which of the following seems more correct than the other? | |||
Doubt can be created or feigned for the purpose of philosophical investigation. | 4 | 57.14% | |
Both doubt and belief require justification. | 3 | 42.86% | |
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-07-2008, 03:09 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
Descartes versus Perice
("Peirce," not "Perice")
Two venerable, but contrasting philosophical positions....
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 10-07-2008 at 03:13 PM. |
10-07-2008, 03:14 PM | #2 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
So you're a fan of the antecedent of James?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
10-07-2008, 03:59 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The People's Republic of Monsanto
Posts: 3,085
|
The discussion between Peirce, James, Dewey, Schiller, Rorty and whoever else is pretty important to me.
I'll take Peirce over Descartes, but then a friend of mine was insistent that many of the positions ascribed to Descartes were inaccurate or misunderstood.
__________________
"Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; " 1 Thess. 5:21 (NRSV) We all trust our own unorthodoxies. Last edited by Sleeping in EQ; 10-07-2008 at 04:02 PM. |
10-07-2008, 04:08 PM | #4 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Peirce had an important influence upon James, who provides me with much thought. Rorty is fascinating.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-07-2008, 05:03 PM | #5 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
10-07-2008, 05:17 PM | #6 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
In fairness, this question requires more familiarity than most retain from the initial philosophy class. I have forgotten Descartes arguments on the matter, but I remember the arguments of Peirce, more through James and a little bit through Dewey than I do Descartes.
Perice argued for a scientific explanation of philosophy, he argued in favor of a method of inquiry, and was made famous through the two followers. SEIQ can explain it better as he framed the question, but Descartes saw doubt as a tool, and in fact proof of his own separate existence. Now it's strange to me that he would argue it can be feigned instead of natural, but I no longer remember the arguments, so help us out SEIQ. (Yes I'm not that dumb, cogito ergo sum). In a nutshell, one might simplify the inquiry, as Descartes arguing you must throw everything into question, and CS Peirce requiring you to accept and justify everything, weeding out what cannot be used or shown through systematic inquiry. That is how I'm interpreting the question but perhaps I err. SEIQ can clean up my mess, but that's what one far removed from school can remember.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα Last edited by Archaea; 10-07-2008 at 06:34 PM. |
Bookmarks |
|
|