Is Sinechism Necessary?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2013 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/16603 |
Resumo: | As Murray Murphey observed over fifty years ago. Peirce´s apparent failure to finish his theory of continuity threatens to reduce his late philosophical system to "a castle in the air". In this paper I begin by arguing that Peirce did indeed fail to develop the rigorous theory of the continuum that he thought he needed. I then take a first stab at the question of whether he really did need it by examining the role of continuity in the 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. While continuity comes into play in those lectures in a surprisingly small number of relatively brief passages, I find two whose doctrinal importance makes them worthy of detailed examination. That examination reveals that the argumentaire force of these passages is much diminished by the lack of a fully worked out theory of continuity; it also reveals how consistently Peirce was led astray by the errors and lacunae in the theory he had partially worked out. But there is good news as well as bad. Peirce has other arguments, not reluing on his failed theory of continuity, for many of the central claims he advances in the harvard lectures. When we are as skeptical as we should be about Peirce´s grand claims about continuity, the result is not to vaporize the castle altogether, but to scale it back to something more modest, but habitable nonetheless. |
id |
PUC_SP-15_9b1b928c73e59fbc4ad2435cc980bc52 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/16603 |
network_acronym_str |
PUC_SP-15 |
network_name_str |
Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Is Sinechism Necessary?O Sinequismo é necessário?SinequismoContinuidadeRealismoGeneralidadeTempo.SyneschismContinuityRealismGeneralutyTime.As Murray Murphey observed over fifty years ago. Peirce´s apparent failure to finish his theory of continuity threatens to reduce his late philosophical system to "a castle in the air". In this paper I begin by arguing that Peirce did indeed fail to develop the rigorous theory of the continuum that he thought he needed. I then take a first stab at the question of whether he really did need it by examining the role of continuity in the 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. While continuity comes into play in those lectures in a surprisingly small number of relatively brief passages, I find two whose doctrinal importance makes them worthy of detailed examination. That examination reveals that the argumentaire force of these passages is much diminished by the lack of a fully worked out theory of continuity; it also reveals how consistently Peirce was led astray by the errors and lacunae in the theory he had partially worked out. But there is good news as well as bad. Peirce has other arguments, not reluing on his failed theory of continuity, for many of the central claims he advances in the harvard lectures. When we are as skeptical as we should be about Peirce´s grand claims about continuity, the result is not to vaporize the castle altogether, but to scale it back to something more modest, but habitable nonetheless.Como observou Murray Murphey hpa mais de cinquenta anos, o aparente fracasso de Peirce em terminar sua teoria da continuidade ameaça reduzir seu último sistema filosófico a um "castelo no ar". Nesse texto, começo por argumentar que Peirce realmente falhou em desenvolver uma teoria rigorosa do continuum que ele pensou precisar. Então, trato primeiro a questão sobre se ele realmente precisava dele, através da avaliação do papel da continuidade nas conferências sobre o Pragmatismo, em Harvard, de 1903. Enquanto a continuidade aparece num surpreendente pequeno número de passagens relativamente breves nessas conferências, encontro duas das quais a importância doutrinal delas as tornam dignas de minuciosa avaliação. Essa avaliação revela que a força argumentativa dessas passagens está muito reduzida em função da ausência de uma teoria da continuidade completamente desenvolvida; também revela como Peirce consistentemente perdeu-se pelos erros e lacunas na teoria que ele havia parcialmente desenvolvido. Porém, existem boas assim como existem más notícias. Peirce tem outros argumentos, que não se apoiam em sua fracassada teoria da continuidade, para muitas das afirmações centrais que ele desenvolve nas conferências de Harvard. Quando somos céticos, como deveríamos ser a respeito das grandes afirmações de Peirce sobre a continuidade, o resultado não é a vaporização completa do castelo, mas sua remodelação a proporções mais modestas, mais ainda assim habitáveis.Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo2013-09-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/16603Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 14 No. 1 (2013); 101-121Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 14 n. 1 (2013); 101-1212316-52781518-7187reponame:Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)instacron:PUC_SPenghttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/16603/12457Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMoore, Matthew E.2024-07-01T13:09:37Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/16603Revistahttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofiaPRIhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/oairevcognitio@gmail.com2316-52781518-7187opendoar:2024-07-01T13:09:37Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Is Sinechism Necessary? O Sinequismo é necessário? |
title |
Is Sinechism Necessary? |
spellingShingle |
Is Sinechism Necessary? Moore, Matthew E. Sinequismo Continuidade Realismo Generalidade Tempo. Syneschism Continuity Realism Generaluty Time. |
title_short |
Is Sinechism Necessary? |
title_full |
Is Sinechism Necessary? |
title_fullStr |
Is Sinechism Necessary? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Is Sinechism Necessary? |
title_sort |
Is Sinechism Necessary? |
author |
Moore, Matthew E. |
author_facet |
Moore, Matthew E. |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Moore, Matthew E. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Sinequismo Continuidade Realismo Generalidade Tempo. Syneschism Continuity Realism Generaluty Time. |
topic |
Sinequismo Continuidade Realismo Generalidade Tempo. Syneschism Continuity Realism Generaluty Time. |
description |
As Murray Murphey observed over fifty years ago. Peirce´s apparent failure to finish his theory of continuity threatens to reduce his late philosophical system to "a castle in the air". In this paper I begin by arguing that Peirce did indeed fail to develop the rigorous theory of the continuum that he thought he needed. I then take a first stab at the question of whether he really did need it by examining the role of continuity in the 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. While continuity comes into play in those lectures in a surprisingly small number of relatively brief passages, I find two whose doctrinal importance makes them worthy of detailed examination. That examination reveals that the argumentaire force of these passages is much diminished by the lack of a fully worked out theory of continuity; it also reveals how consistently Peirce was led astray by the errors and lacunae in the theory he had partially worked out. But there is good news as well as bad. Peirce has other arguments, not reluing on his failed theory of continuity, for many of the central claims he advances in the harvard lectures. When we are as skeptical as we should be about Peirce´s grand claims about continuity, the result is not to vaporize the castle altogether, but to scale it back to something more modest, but habitable nonetheless. |
publishDate |
2013 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2013-09-12 |
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/16603 |
url |
https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/16603 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/16603/12457 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2013 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. 14 No. 1 (2013); 101-121 Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 14 n. 1 (2013); 101-121 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_ |
1803387421344137216 |