Discuss. Did Kant rediscover triads as Hegel claimed? Was Peirce right when he said that all phenomenological "fourthness" is simply a composition of "thirdness" relations (and thereby doesn't exist)? Did Hegel ever try to insinuate at the possibility of fourthness?
How many times is this brainlet remaking this shitty thread
until someone can answer his question I guess?
You've been BTFO in every thread you made so by now everyone knows you're a smooth brain and no longer engage
Pseud
idk who's "BTFOing" me. You must be thinking of somebody else. I rarely participate except to ask questions. I don't argue unless I have a strong sense that I know something and must steer the conversation some way (which is almost never).
This. If people gave me some recommendations on specific readings to jump to, I'd try to figure it out on my own. There's knowledgeable people on this board, so I'm asking for their help.
yo0u could say the same a8out dualities and triads.
Only if you think there's no way to cohere, reconcile, etc, the two. I suspect that "fourthness" a vague posturing towards noumena, a belief that a positive infinity can be overcome.
If Peirce said it, it’s probably right.
Idk. I tend to look at the fruits of somebody's work when I judge them. Despite his genius, Peirce kind of was an arrogant autistic moron in his personal life. Was that because he applied his method? Or because he refused to apply his method in personal affairs?
I think its kinda funny how his personal life was the opposite of pragmatic. Keep in mind he was affected by an extremely painful nerve condition frequently, but it kinda seemed like he was out of control from the start. Still /ourguy/ though.
Peirce's thoughts changed over time, and he became more Neoplatonic, religious, and self-reflective as he got older. But the triadic structure remained a central focus of his thinking. I think he even wrote an essay defending his "triadomania." I just wonder if it's possible to extend his system to "fourthness" by contemplating the infinite. I know for a fact that his thoughts on continuity changed.
If I had to say, “fourthness” can represent information such as the infinite in which the very contemplation of it approaches noetic out-of-boundsness. Contemplations in which all knowing of themselves is only knowing that it is Absolute “something.” I think this can be tied into the later Peirce with Hegel. Sounds kinda pseudish but whatever.
I found an interesting article, but unfortunately it is pay-walled.
>https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/harvard.9780674862906.c20/pdf
Another website briefly describes Schneider's insights.
> A more detailed proposal for Fourthness comes from Herbert Schneider. Schneider concedes three categories to be adequate for dealing with cognitive processes, but argues for "importance" as a category of Fourthness. He notes that, for Peirce, any purpose or good has meaning only in relation to a completely general summum bonum. "No Kantian idealist could have stated this conception of moral science more formally."23
>Schneider observes this scheme does not accommodate norms which might apply "even in the absence of a summum bonum," itches that call to be scratched for their own sake. Such norms he proposes as a phenomenological aspect of Fourthness: logical import is Thirdness, vital importance Fourthness. Satisfaction may comprise either the Thirdness of achievement or the Fourthness of satiety or contentment. The moral self-control of Thirdness in pursuit of an abstract summum bonum is only an abstract "intellectual framework" until it is taken up into the "concrete universal" of the moral self-criticism of Fourthness. Fourthness supplies what depth psychology, but not the Kantian "moral law within," acknowledges.24
>In logical terms, Fourthness would constitute a temporal sequence, though one which is an absolutely discontinuous string of points superimposed on the triadic continuum. Triadic semiosis is "prospective and cumulative"; tetradic semiosis adds a fourth factor which is non-cumulative, but "retrospective" along the hierarchy of categories, giving "meaningful individuality" to instances of Firstness. Since Firstness and Secondness "look 'forward'" to Thirdness while Fourthness "looks back" to Firstness, Thirdness in a sense "governs" Fourthness while Fourthness provides the steam to "drive" Thirdness.25
It sounds like grasping the form of the Good. Could anybody provide the PDF somehow? Pretty please!
Tried z-lib? Search books and if that doesn’t work, search articles. Arthur name and essay title
That’s not what pragmatic means in the Peircean sense
He used the power of abduction to figure out a Black stole his pocket watch.
Which was based. But he could never figure out how to stop cheating, drinking, alienating his friends, and pissing away his money. None of his schemes to make money ever panned out. Peirce was like a Black in his practical affairs. William James even had to control a charitable fund for him to ensure that Peirce wouldn't waste it and starve before the next installment arrived.
Oh yeah, and he completely disregarded social norms and niceties, ensuring that the president of every research university that could feasibly offer him tenure had reasons to despise him and his conduct.
Pure IQfy
Daily reminder that Kant was fully retroactively refuted by Bakker.
For example, while Quine fatally weakened the synthetic/analytic distinction, it was Bakker who provided the proof that calcified dogma is not observably different from analytic fact using a combination of the philosophy of information and semiotics of abstraction, joining the logical systems of Floridi to the physics of messaging via Landauer's Principal and computational entropy. Incomputability, Krylov Complexity, Yao Entropy, have disasterous consequences for proving analytics that are not tautologies, and nowhere is this more apparent then in the Dunyain-Logos Paradigm, as viewed from the Absolute Judging Eye Vector, Whale Rape Gang Bang Hypothesis laid out in The Great Ordeal. Bakker brings philosophy from Kant to Quine full circle, unsublating both, so both can be resublated as an organic whole into the dynamics of whale-mother-cave-rape-as-logos, which provides proof of the incompleteness of Logos due to the incomputability problem. Turing would have been proud!
Note that Kant is also more seriously retroactively refuted vis-á-vis the transcendental aesthetic via the proof of Meat Fueled Murder Rape Orgy (where the inefficiency of the alien space nuke, and resultant high level of radiation released, reminiscent of primitive, WWII era nuclear weapons, results in the Scalded as a boipussy dynamical system, which, shows that even a simple system represented by a differential equation can, and will necissarily produce chaos if it reaches a phase of three in any cycle.) The result is that the faculties cannot be an anchor of anything, as strong variance driven by "initial" conditions invariably leads to chaos. Bakker symbolizes this using the stochastic forces of nuclear radiation, as from those quantum activity we still see the larger classical objects of emergence in the rape orgy.
This shows the teleology of rape, the Inchori Theory and defeats appeals to classical ethics as such.
Again, even more than retroactive refutation, which others have done, Bakker RETROACTIVELY SUBLATES Kant.
I want to understand what you’re saying so badly. But there’s too much weird jargon involved.
Two words: frick kant