First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Forster, Paul
Data de Publicação: 2017
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
Texto Completo: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/33435
Resumo: Charles Sanders Peirce’s epistemology appears paradoxical when compared to Rudolf Carnap’s and W. V. Quine’s. Like Carnap, and unlike Quine, Peirce thinks scientific knowledge rests on logical principles that must hold if talk of truth and falsehood is to be meaningful. He also shares Carnap’s view that these principles are prior to and independent of findings in the natural sciences, a view Quine famously rejects. However, like Quine, and unlike Carnap, Peirce insists that there is no knowledge beyond what is gained through empirical testing, that the truths of logic are epistemologically on a par with truths uncovered in the natural sciences and that they tell us something about the way things are, rather than being empty of factual content as Carnap contends. The air of paradox arises from Peirce’s simultaneous allegiance to views commonly thought to belong to incompatible epistemological theories. Sorting through this paradox by comparing Peirce’s conception of knowledge to Quine’s and to Carnap’s helps us better appreciate his importance in the philosophical tradition and the depth and originality of his views.
id PUC_SP-15_190eaea10bd4bf5dbe2d0f9269445545
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/33435
network_acronym_str PUC_SP-15
network_name_str Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic traditionA primeira filosofia naturalizada: o lugar de Peirce na tradição analíticaPeirceQuineCarnapFirst philosophyNaturalismPeirceQuineCarnapPrimeira filosofiaNaturalismoCharles Sanders Peirce’s epistemology appears paradoxical when compared to Rudolf Carnap’s and W. V. Quine’s. Like Carnap, and unlike Quine, Peirce thinks scientific knowledge rests on logical principles that must hold if talk of truth and falsehood is to be meaningful. He also shares Carnap’s view that these principles are prior to and independent of findings in the natural sciences, a view Quine famously rejects. However, like Quine, and unlike Carnap, Peirce insists that there is no knowledge beyond what is gained through empirical testing, that the truths of logic are epistemologically on a par with truths uncovered in the natural sciences and that they tell us something about the way things are, rather than being empty of factual content as Carnap contends. The air of paradox arises from Peirce’s simultaneous allegiance to views commonly thought to belong to incompatible epistemological theories. Sorting through this paradox by comparing Peirce’s conception of knowledge to Quine’s and to Carnap’s helps us better appreciate his importance in the philosophical tradition and the depth and originality of his views.A epistemologia de Charles Sanders Peirce parece paradoxal quando comparada a de Rudolf Carnap e W.V. Quine. Como Carnap, mas diferentemente de Quine, Peirce considera que o conhecimento científico reside em princípios lógicos que devem se sustentar  para que o discurso sobre o verdadeiro e o falso tenha sentido. Ele também compartilha a visão de Carnap de que esses princípios são anteriores à, e independentes das constatações nas ciências naturais, uma visão que Quine notoriamente rejeita. Todavia, como Quine, mas diferentemente de Carnap, Peirce insiste que não há conhecimento além daquele que é obtido por meio de testes empíricos, que as verdades da lógica estão epistemologicamente a par das verdades descobertas nas ciências naturais, e que nos revelam algo sobre como as coisas são, em vez de carecerem de conteúdo fatual, como Carnap afirma. Um ar de paradoxo emerge no comprometimento simultâneo de Peirce às visões comumente consideradas próprias das teorias epistemológicas incompatíveis. A análise desse paradoxo pela comparação da concepção de conhecimento de Peirce ao de Quine e Carnap nos ajuda a apreciar melhor sua importância na tradição filosófica e na profundeza e originalidade de suas razões.Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo2017-07-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/3343510.23925/2316-5278.2017v18i1p33-44Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 18 No. 1 (2017); 33-44Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 18 n. 1 (2017); 33-442316-52781518-7187reponame:Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)instacron:PUC_SPenghttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/33435/23141Copyright (c) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessForster, Paul2017-08-17T14:49:25Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/33435Revistahttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofiaPRIhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/oairevcognitio@gmail.com2316-52781518-7187opendoar:2017-08-17T14:49:25Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
A primeira filosofia naturalizada: o lugar de Peirce na tradição analítica
title First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
spellingShingle First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
Forster, Paul
Peirce
Quine
Carnap
First philosophy
Naturalism
Peirce
Quine
Carnap
Primeira filosofia
Naturalismo
title_short First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
title_full First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
title_fullStr First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
title_full_unstemmed First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
title_sort First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
author Forster, Paul
author_facet Forster, Paul
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Forster, Paul
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Peirce
Quine
Carnap
First philosophy
Naturalism
Peirce
Quine
Carnap
Primeira filosofia
Naturalismo
topic Peirce
Quine
Carnap
First philosophy
Naturalism
Peirce
Quine
Carnap
Primeira filosofia
Naturalismo
description Charles Sanders Peirce’s epistemology appears paradoxical when compared to Rudolf Carnap’s and W. V. Quine’s. Like Carnap, and unlike Quine, Peirce thinks scientific knowledge rests on logical principles that must hold if talk of truth and falsehood is to be meaningful. He also shares Carnap’s view that these principles are prior to and independent of findings in the natural sciences, a view Quine famously rejects. However, like Quine, and unlike Carnap, Peirce insists that there is no knowledge beyond what is gained through empirical testing, that the truths of logic are epistemologically on a par with truths uncovered in the natural sciences and that they tell us something about the way things are, rather than being empty of factual content as Carnap contends. The air of paradox arises from Peirce’s simultaneous allegiance to views commonly thought to belong to incompatible epistemological theories. Sorting through this paradox by comparing Peirce’s conception of knowledge to Quine’s and to Carnap’s helps us better appreciate his importance in the philosophical tradition and the depth and originality of his views.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-07-10
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/33435
10.23925/2316-5278.2017v18i1p33-44
url https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/33435
identifier_str_mv 10.23925/2316-5278.2017v18i1p33-44
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/33435/23141
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 18 No. 1 (2017); 33-44
Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 18 n. 1 (2017); 33-44
2316-5278
1518-7187
reponame:Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron:PUC_SP
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron_str PUC_SP
institution PUC_SP
reponame_str Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
collection Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revcognitio@gmail.com
_version_ 1803387421770907648