First philosophy naturalized: Peirce’s place in the Analytic tradition
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |