Home
CP 1.39."But Kant does not pursue this line of thought along the straight road to its natural result; because he is a sort of idealist himself. Namely, though not idealistic as to the substance of things, he is partially so in regard to their accidents. Accordingly, he introduces his distinction of the variable and the persistent (beharrlich), and seeks to show that the only way we can apprehend our own flow of ideas, binding them together as a connected flow, is by attaching them to an immediately perceived persistent externality. He refuses to inquire how that immediate external consciousness is possible, though such an inquiry might have probed the foundations of his system."
This is an arch statement. Being an academic reject for most of his long life (for then), Peirce had the luxury of speaking his mind regardless of nuance. It seems to me that immediate perception is impossible to determine but generally to be assumed. We are in charge of everything within us even if it is not immediate in any way that we can document or measure. And we can make no judgment.
An externality is what? Anything outside or anything at all and what is a flow of ideas if not something that proceeds in less than regimental fashion, in other words infused with quantum possibility? I find this all a dead end. I revert to my conclusion in the previous offering -- Idealism and Realism are not two opposite and exclusive notions of reality. They are subsumed under Reality itself as present and accounted for so obviously as to justify some of the good Idealist Bishop's defensive rejoinders to his critics.
"Others indeed may talk, and write, and fight about liberty, and make an outward pretence to it; but the free-thinker alone is truly free." -- George Berkeley.
This is an arch statement. Being an academic reject for most of his long life (for then), Peirce had the luxury of speaking his mind regardless of nuance. It seems to me that immediate perception is impossible to determine but generally to be assumed. We are in charge of everything within us even if it is not immediate in any way that we can document or measure. And we can make no judgment.
An externality is what? Anything outside or anything at all and what is a flow of ideas if not something that proceeds in less than regimental fashion, in other words infused with quantum possibility? I find this all a dead end. I revert to my conclusion in the previous offering -- Idealism and Realism are not two opposite and exclusive notions of reality. They are subsumed under Reality itself as present and accounted for so obviously as to justify some of the good Idealist Bishop's defensive rejoinders to his critics.
"Others indeed may talk, and write, and fight about liberty, and make an outward pretence to it; but the free-thinker alone is truly free." -- George Berkeley.
