Recently had a wide ranging discussion of the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce with the excellent Hermitix Podcast. We explored much broader themes than just his semiotic theories
325. The Work of Charles Sanders Pearce with Toby Chappell
Listen now: https://t.co/8yH037apGM
Youtube: https://t.co/vMOadFcTN2
---
Patreon: https://t.co/wgK1pOwiBM
@turingcop In Lovecraftian/Ligottian terms, probably the only thing worse than a cosmos that is utterly indifferent to us is a cosmos that is conscious of its indifference to us.
Peirceโs and, by extension, Ecoโs models of signs and communication are better able to adapt to the postmodern onslaught of unrestrained signification. Ecoโs playful, yet eerily prescient, characterization of the sign is that a sign is anything that can be used to lie... 1/
All these events were random and yet connected, part of a pattern so large it remained inexplicable. He might, then, have to invent a past from the evidence available---and, in that case, would not the future also be an invention?
Originally determined this during the three years I lived in NYC and relied on the subway, but it applies to airports, Amtrak, long-haul busses and trains, etc.
@RobertTalisse My long-standing theory is that all forms of mass transportation in the US are secretly large-scale psych experiments into how much absurdity people will endure if they think they'll eventually reach their destination anyway.Any actual transportation of people is a happy accident
@RobertTalisse My long-standing theory is that all forms of mass transportation in the US are secretly large-scale psych experiments into how much absurdity people will endure if they think they'll eventually reach their destination anyway.Any actual transportation of people is a happy accident
@chthonic_youth Regular Freemasons are desperately trying to convince younger men to join before the old ones all die off. Irregular lodges are doing a bit better, partially because many will admit women and others who don't fit the traditional image of freemasonry
@SamSmichh I think the biggest issue comes down to J not being a logician, and P not being ok with how J developed things using different tools. Of course it's more nuanced than those issues. If you're interested I can send you the paper; would be interesting to have other comments on it
@SamSmichh That being said, J was open to nominalist interpretations of pragmatism (a huge no-no for P). And J stuck with the original version of the Maxim even as P refined it over time.