Descartes versus Perice - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Sleeping in EQ · 10-07-2008, 03:09 PM

("Peirce," not "Perice")

Two venerable, but contrasting philosophical positions....

Archaea · 10-07-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

("Peirce," not "Perice")

Two venerable, but contrasting philosophical positions....

So you're a fan of the antecedent of James?

Sleeping in EQ · 10-07-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

So you're a fan of the antecedent of James?

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.

Archaea · 10-07-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

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.

Possibly, but I never studied Descartes enough to be able to determine which were his thoughts and which were merely ascribed to him.

Peirce had an important influence upon James, who provides me with much thought. Rorty is fascinating.

Archaea · 10-07-2008, 05:03 PM

A reflection of Perician impact on testing.

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Amer/AmerBeau.htm

Archaea · 10-07-2008, 05:17 PM

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.

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

10-07-2008, 03:09 PM	#1
Sleeping in EQ 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, 05:03 PM	#5
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	A reflection of Perician impact on testing. http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Amer/AmerBeau.htm __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

10-07-2008, 05:17 PM	#6
Archaea 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.