Gary, I was pointing out there are two separate definitions of "realism" which you are conflating in your critique of BK's Idea of the World. The one you are criticizing is the materialist position which stands in opposition to idealism, and I think you would agree that Peirce was an idealist. Ironically, it is the 20th century "realists" who embrace the "Nominalism" of the late Middle Ages and reject the "Realism" of the scholastics, because materialism is incompatible with universal categories (e.g. Platonic forms or archetypes) being real. Do you see what I mean?RehabDoc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 3:57 pm Yes, Ashvin, but don't you think it is confusing to reject 'Realism' when what is being rejected is the nature of the relationship between perception and actuality. For example, it does not necessarily reject the idea that an understanding of the truth of actuality can be approached through consensus across individual observations. So what are we supposed to do with that? The idea of there being the possibility of understanding truth through consensus is exactly what Peirce proposed as the way the truth is obtained--through the consensus that arises among a community of inquirers who are all using the 'semiotic spiral' which we call the 'scientific method' to make sense out of our observations. The huge problem with Cartesian Nominalism is that it claims that an individual BY THEMSELF, has direct access to truth--ie so-called 'foundationalism'. This is a huge problem with Nominalism that feeds into its connection with Individualism, and its fundamental undermining of the significance of communication. How do you bring together the statement that there is no actual 'Realism' with the statement that Scholastic Realism is viable and actually in a position to supersede Cartesian Nominalism?
I pretty much agree with all of the above.It is also difficult to disentangle the concept of truth through scientific consensus and the undermining of 'realism'. My contention is that there is MUCH TO BE GAINED here by introducing the science of Semiotics as the science of signification and meaning, together with the insights of Charles Sanders Peirce which were of great importance and, if we want to bring it around, of great 'significance'. Why? Because of the displacement of the material foundation that Nominalism maintains by a relational foundation consistent with Scholastic Realism and triadic semiotics. Which implies that we are meaning-making creatures, that communication is real and necessary, that we only survive through the 'Social Principle' and through cooperativity, and that the 'Gospel of Love' is of higher importance and significance than the 'Gospel of Greed' into which Nominalism feeds. For me personally, this is the most important message to come out of the fundamental shift that Bernardo is fueling. And it cannot come a minute too soon. None of us is going to get out of this predicament through individual isolated action. It is going to take a concerted and coordinated effort on the part of each Semiotic Animal on the planet. And it begins with a recognition of the reality of Semiosis--that we are interpretant of our experience--and that evolution itself is actually semiosis in action, as was maintained by the late John Deely in his papers on the reality of 'physiosemiosis'--ie. that even the inanimate matter of the universe is engaged in semiosis that directs things in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics, to greater and greater semiotic freedom in the context of open systems into which energy is being pumped. That is, evolution, as semiosis, is directed toward the generation of dissipative systems of greater and greater complexity with steadily increasing semiotic freedom. And that this process goes from the very beginning of time forward and from the very origin of space outward. The universe is engaged in a process of continual semiosis. Which explains how we came to be.
PS - The individual vs. collective critique was raised by Eugene and not one that I share.
