Trying to put Peirce in either nominalism or Platonism (label or categorize him) — Mapping the Medium

To be fair, you're the one hurling the 'isms' around.

The irony...

To be fair, you're the one hurling the 'isms' around. — bongo fury

I am only pointing to the 'isms' that others have labeled.

I am not a follower of any 'ism'.

By labeling,
— Mapping the Medium

Again, nominalism isn't a tendency to proliferate labels. Nominalisation is closer to being that. — bongo fury

I think the point is that from a nominalist perspective, deriving noun phrases like "honey has sweetness" (or just "x has y-ness" in a more general form) from a self-evidently true predicate like "honey is sweet", is often valid even in the existence of ambiguity over whether or not honey does indeed possess sweetness statically or intrinsically (and thus, at all) because we are only dealing with the physical particulars associated with a subject (honey). That is to say, if a specific label (y-ness) only arises from the particulars associated with some subject, how can we rightly prescind those qualities or particulars when dealing with that subject wherever we might encounter it? It seems we would need some sort of genuine abstraction or abstract process, and I guess that could be hypostatic abstraction or something.

edit: removed the "mental" part of "mental abstraction"

Alternatively, you could just be a really careful nominalist. Maybe.

edit: nope, probably not

Just to clarify, my framework is 'Evrostics'.

-evros
breadth, as in breadth of a river

-tic
relating to a process or state

I agree with Nominalism, on those three points. — Arcane Sandwich


Thanks for stepping up and clarifying your position. — Mapping the Medium

You are welcome, you have no need to thank me. I, in fact, thank you, for allowing me to communicate with you. As I have said elsewhere, I am not a nominalist myself. I am a realist (and also a materialist, an atheist, and a supporter of scientism). However, in that image that you shared, I agree with the nominalist on those three key points. There are, however, other ways to compare Nominalism, Platonism, and the work of Peirce.

In some of those comparisons, sometimes I agree with Platonism, believe it or not. How so? Well, I just take it as an ontological fact that Platonism, as a philosophy, is far more dignified (in the political sense, that is, the royal sense) than less respectable forms of idealism, such as "Parmenidean-ism", if that's even a thing.

In others, I agree with Peirce: Platonism is like having your head high in the clouds. A real detective solves criminal cases by looking for clues, and by reasoning. How does he do the latter, the reasoning? He deduces, he induces as well, but more importantly, he "abduces". Thus Peirce establishes a tri-partite distinction between three kinds of reasoning: deductive, inductive, and abductive. The problem is, no one has any real use for abductive reasoning, everyone just uses deductive and inductive forms of reasoning (let's be honest here, folks). That being said, abductive reasoning has a lot going for it, it just so happens that its success is to be found elswhere: in fictional characters, such as Sherlock Holmes, and in real world detectives.

And on some other topics, I agree with nominalism.

But, fourthly (from my "Fourthness", if you will), I have my own ideas, my own thoughts, my own hypotheses, and my own scientific theories. And I have the basic epistemic right to have such things. In fact, I have the basic human right to have them. Furthermore, I have the basic ontological right, as a subject in the ontological sense, to have such rights. I am, after all, free in the sense of having the capacity to act freely as a subject, and more specifically, as a human being.

(edited for the sake of clarity)

as a subject in the ontological sense, to have such rights. — Arcane Sandwich

Of course you do.

If you want to participate in this thread, I only ask that you keep your mind open regarding what you think you know of Peirce, as we are extremely fortunate through his huge collection of writings to bear witness to the evolution (a continuum indeed!) of his architectonic framework.

For instance, speaking of 'isms', ... in Peirce's The Law of Mind, those of us who have studied him thoroughly recognize that this 'early-in-his-architectonic-thought' written essay (published in The Monist, and following 'The Fixation of Belief'), when he used the term 'synechism', he did so to counter nominalism in the public eye in such a way as to help others understand. Later, as he developed and became less available to the public eye, he avoided the use of any 'isms'. It is clear in his private notes that he did not care for 'isms' (nominalism, materialism, phenomenalism, etc). His understanding of continuity is not agreeable to 'isms'.

It is not easy at all to hold a framework that the majority of people are unable to understand, and unfortunately, trying to bridge the 'understanding chasms' often means meeting people where they are in their use of terminology and then walking with them in thought to a place of understanding. ... It is a HUGE challenge.

So, for this thread, this is what we will keep in mind when approaching 'abstraction'....

Abstraction is the process of identifying and isolating qualities or properties from specific, so-termed 'objects' in which they appear. It allows us to focus on certain characteristics while setting aside the complexities of the whole. For example, when we think about "redness," we abstract this quality from all red objects, such as apples, cars, or sunsets.

Abstraction plays a central role in philosophy because it enables us to discern, compare, and analyze the world around us. However, how we treat abstracted properties—whether as real, independent entities or as mere linguistic tools—has long been debated in the philosophical traditions of nominalism and Platonism.

In this thread, we are going to approach abstraction through a Peircean lens. We will not be jumping around from nominalism to Platonism, etc., and we will not be constantly squabbling over which one is better. ... A phaneroscopist understands the value in all 'genuine and dialogue-committed' perspectives, and it is a waste of valuable dialogue time to not adhere to that recognition. Beating each other up verbally is not at all productive. A system that does not remain productively open has no other choice but to become stagnant and die.

phaneroscopist — Mapping the Medium

I've always had the impression that the phaneroscopist does something different than what the phenomenologist does. It's quite obvious that they are not doing the same thing. But here is my personal problem on that point: I can assume the role of the phenomenologist, but I cannot assume the role of the phaneroscopist. Honestly, phaneroscopy is not something that I even tell my students about Peirce at the Uni when I teach them the ideas of Peirce, James and Dewey. As for the nature of abstraction, I'm with Dewey on this one: they're in the brain, our abstractions, that is. Peirce and James are simply mistaken, and therefore, wrong.

Or, perhaps you might convince me of the benefits of phaneroscopy. I do not understand it myself. I have never claimed to understand it. I have never understood it, and I'm quite certain that I never will. Peirce was simply not a good writer, from a stylistic standpoint. He had no flair. Well actually he did, but he is sort of odd. Mario Bunge, one of my philosophical heroes, thought very highly of Peirce. I believe that he said something along the lines of, Peirce was one of the first Truly scientific minds in philosophy, or somnething like that. I might be mis-remembering though. I can look up Bunge's exact words if you want.

(Edited for Clarity's sake. Who is Clarity?)

As for the nature of abstraction, I'm with Dewey on this one: they're in the brain, our abstractions, that is. Peirce and James are simply mistaken, and therefore, wrong. — Arcane Sandwich

Ok. Thank you for letting me know that you are not interested in participating in this thread. Fortunately, there are plenty of threads on this site for you to discuss those topics in.

Ok. Thank you for letting me know that you are not interested in participating in this thread. Fortunately, there are plenty of threads on this site for you to discuss those topics in. — Mapping the Medium

Thank you very much for your time, Mapping the Medium. I'm out. Peace.

Moving forward...

What we will do in this thread is first try to go back in time to when these nominalistic and Platonistic divergences in 'thought' took shape. Of course, to really explore how these veins of thought were first conceived, we would have to go back to pre-Zoroastrianism times, and that is not really feasible here, so we will begin with how nominalism and Platonism both have their roots in Athenian philosophy, which introduced the idea of discrete, bounded forms. This intellectual heritage is what ultimately shaped a worldview that often overlooks the relational, dynamic nature of existence—a hallmark of Peirce's synechistic (continuity) thinking.

We're going to explore the color orange in a sunset as an example to assist in examining all three positions of thought. We will also explore how or why ancient texts did not use the word 'blue' and that there is still a current-world tribe that has never developed or used a word for 'blue'.

I just wanted to set the stage for how we will begin to understand Peirce's tool of precisive abstraction. .... I'll be back later with some first steps for us to take.

Ok. Thank you for letting me know that you are not interested in participating in this thread. Fortunately, there are plenty of threads on this site for you to discuss those topics in. — Mapping the Medium

Thank you very much for your time, Mapping the Medium. I'm out. Peace. — Arcane Sandwich

There is definitely something to be said for keeping threads on track, but:

That was a little...cold. I'm not sure that Sandwich wasn't contributing to the thread, and inviting someone to stop participating in a thread in the absence of belligerence or something kind of needs more justification than just that that person disagrees in a valid way with some core suppositions imo.

But whatever. You made the thread; if you think he is derailing it, you can tell him to go elsewhere if you want.

If you want to participate in this thread, I only ask that you keep your mind open regarding what you think you know of Peirce — Mapping the Medium

In this thread, we are going to approach abstraction through a Peircean lens. — Mapping the Medium

and we will not be constantly squabbling over which one is better. — Mapping the Medium

As for the nature of abstraction, I'm with Dewey on this one: they're in the brain, our abstractions, that is. Peirce and James are simply mistaken, and therefore, wrong. — Arcane Sandwich

Ok. Thank you for letting me know that you are not interested in participating in this thread. Fortunately, there are plenty of threads on this site for you to discuss those topics in. — Mapping the Medium

That was a little...cold. I'm not sure that Sandwich wasn't contributing to the thread, and inviting someone to stop participating in a thread in the absence of belligerence or something kind of needs more justification than just that that person disagrees in a valid way with some core suppositions imo. — ToothyMaw

From my perspective, that was a decision Arcane Sandwich made, not me.

Peace. — Arcane Sandwich

Peace to you as well. You are always welcome to join in again if you are willing to focus on the topic of abstraction through a Peircean lens.
Happy Foruming!

I suppose I should clarify this....

The name of this thread is 'Hypostatic Abstraction, Precisive Abstraction, Proper vs Improper Negation'.

Who developed hypostatic abstraction? ... Charles Sanders Peirce
Hypostatic abstraction is a formal operation that transforms a predicate into a relation. It was formulated by Charles Sanders Peirce, a philosopher and mathematician, and has applications in philosophy of language, mathematical logic, and the analysis of empirical science.

Who developed precisive abstraction? ... Charles Sanders Peirce
Prescisive abstraction, also known as prescission, is a formal operation developed by Charles Sanders Peirce. It selects or points to a feature of an experience while 'properly' negating others. Peirce used this method to discern emergent differences and analyze concepts and ideas juxtaposed to one another to discover hierarchical relationships of dependence among them.

I have edited the above descriptions.

These are my modified versions of online descriptions. Words like 'separate' and 'concrete' are often mixed into these descriptions, but they are not accurate implications.

This is the focus of this thread.

Who developed precisive abstraction? ... Charles Sanders Peirce
Prescisive abstraction, also known as prescission, is a formal operation developed by Charles Sanders Peirce. It selects or points to a feature of an experience while 'properly' negating others. Peirce used this method to discern emergent differences and analyze concepts and ideas juxtaposed to one another to discover hierarchical relationships of dependence among them.

I have edited the above descriptions.

These are my modified versions of online descriptions. words like 'separate' and 'concrete' are often mixed into these descriptions, but they are not accurate implications. — Mapping the Medium

It is no wonder that so many people are confused about Peirce. SO MANY online descriptions mix his work up with other veins of thought. Doing so takes Peirce's work in wrong directions and points to errors that do not actually exist in his work.

Peirce used this method to discern emergent differences and analyze concepts and ideas juxtaposed to one another to discover hierarchical relationships of dependence among them. — Mapping the Medium

Why did I use the word 'juxtaposed'? To notice when things are in juxtaposition is to notice things side by side, with the outcome being that specific qualities are contrasted. ... Juxtaposition doesn't mean exactly that this thing and that thing are opposites and separate, however. ... Pose…as in, to place. To place next to. To juxtapose. The connection has to do with proximity, immediacy, and the temporal, analog continuity of experience. This is why I often refer to a 'manifested placement'. My PRP (phaneroscopic reciprocity principal) aspect of my Evrostics Triad framework explores this. In considering PRP, juxtaposition serves as a manifestation of relational reciprocity, where the observer and observed, or contrasting qualities, are dynamically interdependent. Think 'Heraclitus's Unity of Opposites, or Janus. ... Qualities are contrasted, while at the same time being dependent. ... Again, there is no 'I' without the 'Not I'.

The misinterpretations of Peirce’s work, especially regarding concepts like precisive abstraction, typically stem from several intertwining issues. I will do my best to explain the reasons why this is so important to understand. ...

Peirce's philosophy is inherently complex, relational, and dynamic, which makes it resistant to quick summarization or simplification. Secondary sources often reduce his ideas to fit into frameworks that are more familiar or widely accepted. Using terms like "separate" reflects nominalist thinking, where everything is viewed as discrete and bounded, rather than relational and continuous. Terms like "concrete" might be chosen to make the concept seem easier to grasp but end up distorting its original meaning.

Many contemporary scholars and interpreters are steeped in nominalist, analytic traditions, which prioritize linguistic precision and treat concepts as isolated entities. These traditions can fundamentally clash with Peirce's synechistic continuity, leading to a failure to understand relational ontology and its implications, and an emphasis on abstraction as separation rather than as an emergently relational operation.

Online content is often not written by experts in Peircean philosophy but by people referencing tertiary sources. Errors or biases in interpretation are amplified and manifested due to content creators relying on surface-level understanding, and the emphasis on keywords like "separate" or "concrete" aligning with SEO (search engine optimization) goals rather than fidelity to Peirce’s original intent.

Many philosophers, even teachers, are not adequately trained in Peirce's semiotic and synechistic frameworks. Instead, they approach his ideas through the lens of Western dualisms (e.g., subject/object, mind/body), and struggle with the triadic nature of Peirce’s logic, often collapsing it into binary or dualistic structures.

This confusion persists because Peirce's original writings are challenging, not only due to his intricate language but also because he introduces new terminologies and redefines existing ones (e.g., "abstraction"), and his work is spread across a vast array of manuscripts, making coherent interpretation difficult for many people.

My frustration with the distortion of Peirce’s ideas is entirely valid, and my insights will hopefully operate as an important corrective to what has happened with how others misinterpret his work. By emphasizing continuity, manifested placement, and relational dynamics in my explanations, I am attempting to return Peirce’s ideas to their rightful context.

Ok. ... I am going to try again to explore Peirce's 'Precisive Abstraction' in this thread. ...

Peirce developed precisive abstraction to be employed in this way. ... to select or point to a feature of an experience while 'properly' (NOT a binary 'not) negating others. Peirce used this method to discern emergent differences and analyze concepts and ideas juxtaposed to one another to discover hierarchical relationships of dependence among them.

We are going to explore the color orange in a sunset as an example to assist in examining all three positions of thought (the differences from nominalism and Platonism that make Peirce's original precisive abstraction stand out). We will also explore how or why ancient texts did not use the word 'blue' and that there is still a current-world tribe that has never developed or used a word for 'blue'.

I am posting this again for ease of reference. ...

Okay, yes, this is interesting enough to maintain at least my interest and suspension of nominalist assumptions or whatever, but you need to throw some meat out there. What are we trying to do? Lecturing us on how Peirce is misunderstood should give way to some sort of discussion of what he was trying to say.

Lecturing us on how Peirce is misunderstood should give way to some sort of discussion of what he was trying to say. — ToothyMaw

I completely agree. ... I work two jobs, maintain a home and the beginnings of a new vegetable garden, plus I'm trying to write a book, so my time here might be a bit more sporadic than I'd like. Perhaps that influenced my frustration in trying to keep this thread on track.

My next post today will have some directional meat on its bones. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

:up:

When we view a sunset, our experience as observers is a relational 'whole' that includes a variety of elements—color gradients, the curvature of the horizon, temperature, what it might mean to us emotionally, etc. The 'sunset' is a dynamic context << (you might want to reflect on hypostatic abstraction here).

The color orange is not an isolated, separate entity; it is a feature relationally embedded in the manifestation of the sunset. ... Through precisive abstraction, we can mentally focus on 'orange' by disregarding other features such as the movement of the clouds or the fading blue above, and we can do this without asserting that orange exists independently of these relationships.

Through Peirce's precisive abstraction, we can recognize orange as a dependent quality—it cannot exist without its relational context in the sunset. ... So, our next step might be to explore hierarchical dependencies—such as, how the perception of orange depends on the interplay of light, atmosphere, and our personal sensory apparatus.

Peirce's approach emphasizes continuity. ...The experience of orange emerges from a relational process involving the world, the perceiver, and the broader phaneron.. ... And as for emergence. ... Orange is not "out there" or "in here" but arises through the semiotic process of interpreting the event of the sunset. <<< I will explain more about this semiotic framework in a subsequent post.

A nominalist might argue that orange is merely a label we subjectively assign to what we perceive, dismissing its relational genesis in the physical world.
A Platonist might treat orange as a universal form existing apart from the sunset, as though it were a preordained property applied to sunsets (like orange is on God's or the gods' paint palette).

Some questions we might ask ourselves in this precisive abstraction might be ... How does focusing on orange change our understanding of the sunset as a whole? Could orange exist if we didn’t also perceive the gradients leading to and from it (such as yellow, red, etc.)? How does our shared biology and cultural context (placement) influence the way we abstract orange from this relational whole? <<< More on this later too.

Expanding on my previous post....

The color orange, when abstracted from specific contexts like sunsets, might carry any number of cultural meanings and associations around the world. ... Personal perspectives are deeply rooted in cultural, historical, religious, and environmental factors.

In Western cultures, orange might be associated with energy, warmth, enthusiasm, and creativity, because in marketing and design, orange is typically used to convey vibrancy and fun.

In India, orange (or saffron) holds deep spiritual significance, symbolizing purity, renunciation, and sacredness. It is a key color in Hinduism and Buddhism, often associated with monks' robes and divine energy. In Buddhism and Hinduism, the sacred aspects of this color represent enlightenment, sacrifice, and the renunciation of worldly attachments.

In Chinese culture, orange is linked to good fortune and prosperity. It often appears during celebrations and is seen as a blend of the yang principle of red and the neutrality of yellow. And in Japan, orange can symbolize love and courage.

Many Native American cultures associate orange with the Earth, the harvest, and autumn. It often represents change, transformation, and the cyclical nature of life.

In the Netherlands, orange is a national color, representing Dutch royalty and patriotism.

In psychological assessments and tests, orange is often considered a stimulating color, associated with excitement, determination, and social connection, but its intensity can also evoke agitation or overstimulation in certain cultural contexts.

In some Christian interpretations, orange might signify endurance and strength, representing fire and the Holy Spirit.

In Renaissance Europe, the color orange gained prominence through art, with painters like Titian using it to symbolize passion and vitality.

In African traditions, orange is often used in textiles and body art to symbolize energy, fertility, and the life-giving force of the sun.

In modern art and fashion, orange became a hallmark of the counterculture movements of the 1960s and 70s, representing rebellion and individuality.

For environmental and natural associations, orange is tied to natural phenomena like autumn leaves, fire, and fruits, like oranges and pumpkins.

Its vibrant yet earthy tone often connects it to cycles of life, decay, and rebirth, but there are plenty of negative connotations. Western cultures can occasionally associate orange with cheapness or garishness. And in Middle Eastern culture, in certain contexts, orange can symbolize mourning or loss.

I just wanted to point out that the observer of a sunset brings with them all of this and more.