Talk:Categories (Peirce)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Attribution[edit]

Most of the Wikipedia article Categories (Peirce) has come from various versions of the Wikipedia article Charles Peirce.

The Tetrast 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Inline External Links Considered Distracting[edit]

It is somewhat preferable from a readability standpoint to reduce the number of inline external links to a minimum, using standard academic citations in the text, and either formatting the external links as bibliographic references in the References section or placing them in the External Links section at the end. Ian Ouellette 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Category: Logic or Philosophy?[edit]

Somebody replaced "Category: Philosophy" with "Category: Logic" at the page's foot. I undid the edit. Peirce introduced his category system in a context of philosophical logic, but eventually saw it as phenomenology. Most people now would have trouble identifying its subject matter with that of logic. All in all, maybe one could add "Category: Logic" to this article, but one should definitely not remove "Category: Philosophy" from it. Even if it's logic, it's philosophical logic. The Tetrast (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

I added the page to "Category: Philosophical logic" and "Category: Phenomenology". Pollinoisisss (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (Pollinosisss's signature added by The Tetrast)
That's fine, but please justify your removal of "Category: Philosophy". Also, please sign your comments on talk pages. One signs by typing four tildes like so: ~~~~ and the Wikipedia edit software will do the rest. The Tetrast (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
Forgive me for forgetting to sign my name.
The main philosophy category should be pretty much empty. Pages should be moved down to more appropriate subcategories.
Wikipedia:Categorization tells us that:
Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. -Pollinosisss (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Now I get it. Thank you!
I just checked the various articles on philosophical categories, and they don't have a consistent pattern of Wiki-categorization. As far as I know there are five of them. Are five too few to warrant a new Wiki-category? I imagine so. But at some point it might be worth doing.
  Category of being
  Categories (Aristotle)
  Categories (Peirce)
  Categories (Stoic)
  Category (Kant)
The Tetrast (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC).
That's not a bad idea. I think it would make sense to create a new category for these.
Do you have any ideas for a parent category/categories? -Pollinosisss (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Parent category, a tough question. That's why I started thinking of "Category: Philosophical category" or something like that - because I couldn't think of a parent category to add to all the above-listed articles. Well, people generally seem to think of philosophical categories as ontology. Peirce considered ontology to be general metaphysics and, in earlier years, put categories in (philosophical) logic and, in later years, put them in phenomenology (which he considered prior to logic). Peirce thought that metaphysicians regarded their field as more basic than it was, and that they had been a continual hindrance in philosophy. As for Aristotle, it's not clear. He seems to view his categories both as categories of terms and of beings. He discusses 10 categories in Categories which is the first book in his series on logic Organon which discusses terms, propositions, arguments, and the buildup of knowledge. In the so-called Metaphysics where Aristotle discusses First Philosophy, which does seem ontological, about "substance qua substance", he includes a philosophical lexicon with 15 of what you could call categories. So, Peirce would hate to see his categories classed as ontology; I'm not sure what Aristotle or Kant would think; the Stoic categories look ontological to me but I'm no expert; and people generally regard philosophical categories as an ontological question.
So, having thought it over, I guess that I'd rather see "Philosophical categories" have no parent category besides "Philosophy" itself but, on the other hand, if you think that it needs a parent category besides "Philosophy" itself, then "Ontology" seems the best bet since that's where most people would expect to find it anyway. I can always add some text to the "Categories (Peirce)" article about Peirce's not thinking of it as ontology.
I should add something anyway, I've kind of neglected this article. But I've found that the scholars see some pretty thorny issues in Peirce's ideas about phenomenology (or "phaneroscopy" as he sometimes called it), so I've had some trepidation. The Tetrast (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC).
I went ahead and created Category:Philosophical categories. I placed it directly under the philosophy category. Please feel free modify what I have done. -Pollinosisss (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you've done just fine and I'm glad that you came along. Now I'm looking at that "Category of being" wiki and contemplating some possible edits to it somewhere down the line. The Tetrast (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

dialectic[edit]

Peirce's notion of "third" seems to be akin to the concept of "dialectic" in 19th century thought. I found that thinking in terms of this concept helped me understand what Peirce is talking about. Has anyone mentioned this? Tkuvho (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)