SigPhiSigPhi

Hasard, amour et logique : essais philosophiques

Charles Peirce

Langue:
anglais
État:
Œuvre complète
Paternité:
Écrite par l'auteur
État du texte:
Texte propre
Étendue:
~92 800 mots · 441 passages
Citer cette œuvre
  • APACharles Peirce. (n.d.). Hasard, amour et logique : essais philosophiques. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/fr/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays
  • MLACharles Peirce. "Hasard, amour et logique : essais philosophiques." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/fr/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays.
  • ChicagoCharles Peirce. Hasard, amour et logique : essais philosophiques. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/fr/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays.

De quoi il s'agit

Chance, Love and Logic : essais philosophiques.

Contexte et histoire

Le recueil posthume (1923) qui a mis Peirce à la portée d'un public. On y trouve « The Fixation of Belief » et « How to Make Our Ideas Clear », les deux articles où naît le pragmatisme, et les essais cosmologiques sur le hasard comme trait réel de l'univers. Peirce a peu publié de son vivant et est mort pauvre ; la reconnaissance est venue après.

Contexte éditorial, non une source citable : contrairement aux passages de l'œuvre, ces données ne peuvent pas être vérifiées dans le corpus.

Comment cela commence
Descartes is the father of modern philosophy, and the spirit of Cartesianism—that which principally distinguishes it from the scholasticism which it displaced—may be compendiously stated as follows: 1. It teaches that philosophy must begin with universal doubt; whereas scholasticism had never questioned fundamentals. 2. It teaches that the ultimate test of certainty is to be found in the individual consciousness; whereas scholasticism had rested on the testimony of sages and of the Catholic Church. 3. The multiform argumentation of the middle ages is replaced by a single thread of inference depending often upon inconspicuous premises. 4. Scholasticism had its mysteries of faith, but undertook to explain all created things. But there are many facts which Cartesianism not only does not explain but renders absolutely inexplicable, unless to say that “God makes them so” is to be regarded as an explanation. In some, or all of these respects, most modern philosophers have been, in effect, Cartesians. Now without wishing to return to scholasticism, it seems to me that modern science and modern logic require us to stand upon a very different platform from this. 1. We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the North Pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian.…

Lire l'œuvre entière →

← Retour à Charles Peirce