Scientist, mathematician, thinker, the father of pragmatism, the inspiration for William James and John Dewey, Charles Peirce has remained until recently a philosopher's philosopher. Peirce trod a fine line between the extremes of nominalism and realism, tough-minded pragmatism and metaphysical speculation. As Peter Skagestad makes clear, Peirce's system of thought was fragmented, incomplete, and sometimes inconsistent. But one overriding concern gives unity to the whole: the road of inquiry must never be blocked.

The climate of epistemological opinion is rapidly changing in the direction of an increasing concern with the substantive results of the empirical sciences of man, such as psychology and biology. This change is of a comparatively recent date: as late as in 1964, Chauncey Wright’s seminal speculations on the biology of knowledge-processes were shrugged off by one commentator as “nineteenth-century impedimenta and paraphernalia”. Today, such a judgment seems strangely out of date. Our knowledge of man as an animal has been (...) broadened and deepened, both by the dramatic advances of molecular biology and by the recent appearance of the ‘sociobiology’ represented by Edward O. Wilson. To the philosopher, the question inevitably arises of how far this knowledge extends and, in particular, to what extent it can account for peculiarly human intellectual phenomena, such as the growth of scientific knowledge. The study of man as an animal and the study of man as a knower can no longer be simply assumed to be two distinct and separate departments of thought. (shrink)

The climate of epistemological opinion is rapidly changing in the direction of an increasing concern with the substantive results of the empirical sciences of man, such as psychology and biology. This change is of a comparatively recent date: as late as in 1964, Chauncey Wright’s seminal speculations on the biology of knowledge-processes were shrugged off by one commentator as “nineteenth-century impedimenta and paraphernalia”. Today, such a judgment seems strangely out of date. Our knowledge of man as an animal has been (...) broadened and deepened, both by the dramatic advances of molecular biology and by the recent appearance of the ‘sociobiology’ represented by Edward O. Wilson. To the philosopher, the question inevitably arises of how far this knowledge extends and, in particular, to what extent it can account for peculiarly human intellectual phenomena, such as the growth of scientific knowledge. The study of man as an animal and the study of man as a knower can no longer be simply assumed to be two distinct and separate departments of thought. (shrink)

Peirce trod a fine line between the extremes of nominalism and realism, tough-minded pragmatism and metaphysical speculation. As Peter Skagestad makes clear, Peirce's system of thought was fragmented, incomplete, and sometimes inconsistent.

DURING the past decade or so, philosophers of science have increasingly recognized that the rationality and progressiveness of science cannot be fully exhibited in syntactic or semantic terms, i.e., by considering science merely as a system of symbols. The idea is rapidly gaining ground that science is fundamentally a way of dealing with the world around us and that the rationality of scientific method essentially depends on the role which it plays within our total conduct.

The adjective 'virtual,' practically unheard-of a few years ago, has become a primary buzzword of the 90's. Yet the word 'virtual' is nothing new, although its ubiquity is new, as is perhaps its current meaning or meanings. In 1902 the word was defined by Charles Peirce as follows: 'A virtual X is something, not an X, which has the deficiency of an X.' Peirce also references Scotus's concept of virtual knowledge, the concept of virtual velocity in physics, and Edmund Burke's (...) doctrine of virtual representation, which is not representation but is supposedly as good as. The concept of virtuality is deeply embedded in Peirce's doctrine of signs and hence in his semiotic doctrine of mind. In this Peircean doctrine, which has been more recently echoed in the writings of Wittgenstein and Popper, we find the most promising philosophical framework available for the understanding and advancement of the project of augmenting human intellect through the development and use of virtual technologies. (shrink)

Among R. G. Collingwood's central ideas were those of history as the re-enactment of past thought and of metaphysics as the analysis of the absolute presuppositions of an era. Both are reflected, though somewhat differently, in the thought and work of Collingwood's one-time student Isaiah Berlin, who explicitly distanced himself from Collingwood's re-enactment doctrine, while himself embracing the somewhat similar, Diltheyan doctrine. By contrast, Berlin accepts Collingwood's doctrine of absolute presuppositions, and his study of the breakdown of the European Enlightenment (...) from internal stresses and strains provides an exemplary illustration of Collingwood's brief account of how absolute presuppositions undergo change. (shrink)

This study of Collingwood and his work covers the full range and reach of his philosophical thought. Following Collingwood's education and his Oxford career, Skagestad considers his relationship with prominent Italian philosophers Croce and De Ruggiero and the British idealists. Taking Collingwood's publications in order, he explains under what circumstances they were produced and the reception of his work by his contemporaries and by posterity. Most importantly, Skagestad reveals Collingwood's relevance today, through his concept of barbarism as a perceptive diagnosis (...) of totalitarianism and his prescient warning of the rise populism in the 21st century. (shrink)

The replacement, under totalitarian regimes, of multiple sources of information with a single information monopoly confers an indeterminacy on the concepts of truth, fact, objectivity, and reality. From a pragmatist perspective, these words can then no longer mean exactly what they mean to speakers accustomed to freedom of discussion and inquiry. This corruption of discourse is detailed, e.g., in Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, where criteria for belief?formation are ultimately completely divorced from the objects of belief. Like George Orwell, Koestler (...) postulates a coherent totalitarian perspective, in which the objects of belief are no longer relevant to belief?formation. The present article argues that, once the connection between belief?formation and the object of belief is severed, one can no longer have a coherent body of belief. There is also no evidence that this connection was ever severed in the mind of Koestler's historical protagonist Bukharin, who thus differs from his counterpart Rubashov in Koestler's novel. On the other hand, Koestler's critics are at fault for exaggerating the contrast between Rubashov and the historical Bukharin. The latter's confession at the Moscow Trials can be best understood as a testimony to the epistemically and linguistically corruptive process detailed in Koestler's novel. (shrink)