The subjects that are the topics of conversation, as well, picking Philosophers that aren't as well known, or referenced as the likes of Nietzsche, Hume or Descartes, the ones that can be considered "on the fringes", of this discipline, is what I enjoy the most about N.T.A., the obscurity of this Philosopher, makes this episode that much more interesting. Diving as deep into intellectualism as N.T.A. does and has been doing, makes this program the amazingly impressive show that it is, and as well, very indispensable as an academic resource that brings to light those who would otherwise remain "untouched", by most, if not all of, what could be considered mainstream Philosophical programs, online magazines, blogs...etc. Thanks again, and please keep pushing forwards, as you've always done in the past!

You got me! Up to now C. S. Peirce was just someone that William James made reference to at times in my reading. But when Dr Crabtree suggests that his writing style and deep thinking makes it very challenging to read his works, that was all it took to set me on the path. I will start tonight with an 1877 article, "The Fixation of Belief." I look forward to the journey. Thank You!! - James (William)

@thebiomatrix

6 жыл бұрын

Peirce has a collective works, that I loaned from Falmer university in the early 90's.

@JamesSheffer

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you, Steven, for the lead. I have found a web site that has several of his articles lifted from journals. Also a few of his books on Kindle. I try to read his writings earlier in the day rather than just before bedtime. I sleep better that way. :)

@sawtoothiandi

4 жыл бұрын

@@JamesSheffer How are you getting on? I have recently asked for a 'sign' and been directed towards the field of semiotics. I have found a philosopher called John Deely who has written an interpretation of the history of western philosophy through the lens of semiotics 'Four Ages of Understanding: The First Postmodern Survey of Philosophy from Ancient Times to the Turn of the Twenty-First Century'. That book hasnt arrived just yet but i look forward to reading it. I think it may be very useful in rationalizing a lot of what seems irrational in our current society and culture. My ultimate aim would be to see how semiotics may relate to Buddhist philosophy.

@JamesSheffer

4 жыл бұрын

@@sawtoothiandi It sounds we may have been traveling some of the same paths on our goal to "rationalizing what seems irrational in our current society and culture." As soon as I began my venture into semiotics (Charles Peirce to Morris through Tom Sebeok) my ingestion of their philosophies was overshadowed by a taste of Skinner's behaviorism. The primary basis of the philosophy being the senses (anthropologically biased) and omitting the consciousness of Huxley's "mind-at-large", though I believe Aristotle included that element, turned me closer to a favorite of mine, Bernardo Kastrup. I have come to recognize that culture, society and RELIGION are at the core of "irrationality," and the resultant eradication of Love (or concern) for others and myself - including me and the tree in my backyard. Theravada Buddhist tradition has become my escape. Thanks for the privilege of having communicated with you! - James S.

@sawtoothiandi

4 жыл бұрын

@@JamesSheffer a litttle tip, there is a book soon to be released by the semiotician Marcel Danesi called 'The art of the lie: how the manipulation of language affects our minds'. I think it may be very pertinent to social media, media in general, capitalist propaganda, politicians, and one donald j drumpf 🤥 Word to the wise 😉

It’s true that Peirce’s work is difficult to read. But a very interesting thing is that Peirce’s views in secondary sources are extremely clear as if understanding his system provided transparent speech and writing. Or maybe it’s only that Peirce’s readers are naturally pragmatic people... Oppositely, Saussure’s Cours de linguistique is quite straightforward but was the source of 100 years of gibberish structuralism and formalism...

Interesting take on Peirce's work concerning his metaphysical stances. Indeed he was a great philosopher that was overlooked and blacklisted in academia. In his Collected Papers he mentions how he is first and foremost a logician. There's no doubt that his foundation and upbringing in logic established his pragmatism.

Thank you both

The Void begets the One, the One begets the Two, the Two begets the Three, and the Three begets everything (the ten thousand things).

Some of this also sounds like Alfred North Whitehead.

Peirce was a real one

18:50 M. Heidegger is difficult to read, yet he is influential and known.

What is habits ?

I think the question needs to be asked why the grand mind evolved towards a set of laws that are reductionistic. My answer is that a reductionistic world provides stability against the pure potential of mind which could be chaotic.

@j000andersson

3 жыл бұрын

Oh, Peirce's theory covers this eloquently: In addition to possibility/chance (primary), he emphasises the role of necessity/conformity (secondary), and, lastly, association/habit (tertiary). Agency might always be borne out of chance occurrence, however it immediately falls into pattern, esp when agency is aggregated; the atom will flow alongside all the other atoms.

@dialecticalmonist3405

3 жыл бұрын

@@j000andersson Future, present and past.

I like this. Teleology without intelligent design.

Parapsychology? How they perform? It seems to work? Oh boy!

I think Adam might find *Signature In The Cell* an interesting read.

very good Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Great aletheia

There were some jealous and begrudging peers and mentors that didn't help or promote Peirse' work.

This is a very personal view of Peirce, refer to Hilary Putnam for a more balanced view .

21.yüzyıl bilimselliğini derin psişik ortamdaki gerşekliklerden hareketle anlamaya yönelik holistik bağlamda yapılandırılmış olağandışı bir söyleşi

1:48 PERRS

this is pretty retro for a channel called new thinking allowed

mind everything not just all mind...

Jeffrey, look a little closer. It's spelled Peirce, not Pierce.

@NewThinkingAllowed

6 жыл бұрын

Do you see it misspelled somewhere?

@stvbrsn

6 жыл бұрын

New Thinking Allowed no, at the beginning of the interview Jeff asks about the pronunciation saying "why is it pronounced 'purse' when it's spelled Pierce." I was just pointing out that it's spelled just as oddly (Peirce) as it's pronounced, that's all. Cheers!

@Paddyllfixit

6 жыл бұрын

Every twitch is being scrutinized on this show Jeff. ;-)

@Paddyllfixit

6 жыл бұрын

Soteriologist, Why did you remove your posts? I enjoy your silly little rants about nothing.

@Paddyllfixit

6 жыл бұрын

Ehhh....Amanda, where is that coming from? I wasn't even addressing you, so what's with giving me the blow-dryer effect?

Please stop saying that Peirce is hard to read...its totally untrue...hes not a romance novelist like James...peirce is easily understandable.. He just doesnt pander to the reader LOL

@jamespower5165

11 ай бұрын

His diction is poor compared to someone like a Bertrand Russell or a David Hume for example but he certainly doesn't speak in some self-satisfied jargon as many academic philosophers still do. He just doesn't organize his ideas as well or devote the appropriate amounts of space to the different things he's saying as more skilful writers do

PEIRCE INFINITY THESE 'STUDENTS' ZERO

Interviewer interrupts way too much. Even if I see topics that I’m interested in I probably won’t watch again. Stop cutting off the person you’re interviewing.