The first part of this essay provides an analysis of the text “The Law of Mind”, in which Peirce theorizes about the power of growth and spreading of ideas and also presents his response to the classic question about how mind can influence matter. We intended to show, from an analysis focused on the dual semantic meaning of the word “ affect ”, how the author’s rupture with the Cartesian dualism between mind and matter implies in a substantial identity between (...) ideality and reality by means of a metaphysical merging of realism and idealism, where matter is taken to be only a special case of mind . The second part shows how the forms of evolutionism are drawn from the three categories, highlighting the agapism, the doctrine of cosmic and creative love. Finally, we shall argue on how the association between realism and idealism, as well as the considerations of the author’s evolutionism, constitute vital aspects for the justification of the historical success of our human capacity for conjecturing, viz., for proposing successful hypothesis to explain the facts. (shrink)

There are significant differences between the neopragmatism as formulated by Rorty, based on James’ and Dewey’s pragmatism, and what Peirce, in order to distinguish his own approach from the last two thinkers, called pragmaticism. I take in this paper the concept of solidarity as a focus, from which those differences will be implied, albeit many other points could be chosen. I highlight that the usual Rorty’s sentence beginning with ‘we pragmatists…’ shall necessarily exclude Peirce. Exemplarily, I could mention the concepts (...) of representation, which for Peirce has nothing to do with mirror, and of truth that, for him, also has no relation at all with fixed essences. Those differences will not only mark a very clear border between the two concepts of pragmatism, but also will question how the idea of community can be supported only by dialogical agreements, without the anchor of common open human experience. Pragmaticism and neopragmatism differ not only regarding their specific range of philosophical problems but, moreover, on what kind of problems they really consider as genuinely philosophical. (shrink)

This chapter presents a detailed explanation of Peirce’s early and late views on semiotic indeterminacy and then considers how those views might be applied within biosemiotics. Peirce distinguished two different forms of semiotic indeterminacy: generality and vagueness. He defined each in terms of the “right” that indeterminate signs extend, either to their interpreters in the case of generality or to their utterers in the case of vagueness, to further determine their meaning. On Peirce’s view, no sign is absolutely determinate, i.e., (...) every sign is indeterminate to at least some degree and so exhibits some degree of generality or vagueness. If Peirce was right about this, then no instance of biosemiosis is completely determinate—every biosign must be general or vague to some degree. I show that on Peirce’s view, whether a sign is general or vague depends on its immediate object, “the idea which the sign is built upon,” and I explain how Peirce would go about identifying the immediate object of a sign lacking both a minded utterer and a minded interpreter—an identification that must be possible if any biosign is indeterminate. (shrink)

Por mente resiliente, quero dizer a capacidade de toda mente de lidar com a dureza da alteridade, que exige um esforço contínuo para permitir o desenvolvimento de hábitos de conduta. O predicado da resiliência vem da capacidade da mente de se autocorrigir, cada vez que esses hábitos perdem sua eficiência mediativa, exigindo, portanto, a reconstrução de novas mediações cognitivas como hábitos de ação. Neste artigo, proponho refletir sobre o conjunto de interpretantes semióticos proposto por Peirce com o objetivo de explorar (...) sua faceta habitual. Com esta linha de análise, pretendo mostrar que a resiliência é uma propriedade necessária que toda mente deve ter no mais alto grau para lidar com o conflito entre interpretantes emocionais e lógicos, onde a predominância do primeiro em detrimento do segundo pode gerar situações agudas de sofrimento psicológico bloqueando o acesso a representações que, de outra forma, poderiam romper a força bruta da alteridade. (shrink)

Journal Name: Semiotica Issue: Ahead of print.

O presente artigo reflete sobre os argumentos propostos por Charles Sanders Peirce em sua conhecida VII Conferência de Cambridge, proferida em 1898, sob o título “Hábito”, na qual justifica a sua posição acerca de como seria possível explicar a origem do universo através de uma filosofia de caráter genético. Essa explicação toma, no interior de seu complexo sistema arquitetônico de pensamento, a tendência à aquisição de hábitos como o princípio explicativo fulcral sobre a origem e a evolução das Leis da (...) Natureza. Peirce adota tal princípio como aquele que sustentaria uma afinidade entre mente e matéria. (shrink)