SigPhiSigPhi

Caso, amore e logica: saggi filosofici

Charles Peirce

Lingua:
inglese
Stato:
Opera completa
Autorialità:
Scritta dall'autore
Stato del testo:
Testo pulito
Estensione:
~92.800 parole · 441 passi
Cita quest'opera
  • APACharles Peirce. (n.d.). Caso, amore e logica: saggi filosofici. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/it/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays
  • MLACharles Peirce. "Caso, amore e logica: saggi filosofici." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/it/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays.
  • ChicagoCharles Peirce. Caso, amore e logica: saggi filosofici. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/it/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays.

Di che cosa tratta

Caso, amore e logica: saggi filosofici.

Contesto e storia

La raccolta postuma (1923) che mise Peirce alla portata di un pubblico. Contiene «Il fissarsi della credenza» e «Come rendere chiare le nostre idee», i due articoli in cui nasce il pragmatismo, e i saggi cosmologici sul caso come tratto reale dell'universo. Peirce pubblicò poco in vita e morì povero; il riconoscimento venne dopo.

Contesto editoriale, non una fonte citabile: a differenza dei passi dell'opera, questi dati non si possono verificare sul corpus.

Come comincia
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.…

Leggi l'opera intera →

← Torna a Charles Peirce