USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Peirce on the passions

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Peirce on the passions the role of instinct, emotion, and sentiment in inquiry and action
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Beeson, Robert J
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Mind
Sign
Self
Consciousness
Pragmatism
Dissertations, Academic -- Philosophy -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: One of the least explored areas of C.S. Peirce's wide range of work is his contributions to psychology and the philosophy of mind. This dissertation examines the corpus of this work, especially as it relates to the subjects of mind, habit, instinct, sentiment, emotion, perception, consciousness, cognition, and community. The argument is that Peirce's contributions to these areas of investigation were both highly original and heavily influenced by the main intellectual currents of his time. An effort has been made to present Peirce's philosophy without apology, within the conceptual framework and idiom of its time, and without appeal to a comprehensive view that Peirce never articulated. Nevertheless, as several noted interpreters have argued, much of this work can be viewed through the lens of Peirce's innovative theory of signs and the notion of the semiotic triad as its central unifying feature, despite the fact that the general theory was itself under continuous refinement and remained incomplete at the time of his death. Another hermeneutical device employed is William James' better known and more accessible work which, when juxtaposed with Peirce's ideas, serves to bring them into sharper relief. While general and historical in the presentation of material, this study seeks, at the same time, to engage the criticism of contemporary Peirce scholars in an attempt to account for several of the conundrums inherent in Peirce's work. Among the problems with implications for his philosophy of mind and theory of inquiry are the limitations of his theory of continuity, his negative view of the self, his somewhat ambiguous position on the relation of psychology to logic, and the metaethical puzzle arising from application of his theory of probable inference to truly fateful decisions. These problems provide an interesting perspective and lend balance to the truly insightful contributions Peirce made to the discovery of the mind.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Robert J. Beeson.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 353 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 002001459
oclc - 319838465
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002658
usfldc handle - e14.2658
System ID:
SFS0026975:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002001459
003 fts
005 20090501110020.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090501s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002658
035
(OCoLC)319838465
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
B72 (Online)
1 100
Beeson, Robert J.
0 245
Peirce on the passions :
b the role of instinct, emotion, and sentiment in inquiry and action
h [electronic resource] /
by Robert J. Beeson.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
2008.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 353 pages.
Includes vita.
502
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: One of the least explored areas of C.S. Peirce's wide range of work is his contributions to psychology and the philosophy of mind. This dissertation examines the corpus of this work, especially as it relates to the subjects of mind, habit, instinct, sentiment, emotion, perception, consciousness, cognition, and community. The argument is that Peirce's contributions to these areas of investigation were both highly original and heavily influenced by the main intellectual currents of his time. An effort has been made to present Peirce's philosophy without apology, within the conceptual framework and idiom of its time, and without appeal to a comprehensive view that Peirce never articulated. Nevertheless, as several noted interpreters have argued, much of this work can be viewed through the lens of Peirce's innovative theory of signs and the notion of the semiotic triad as its central unifying feature, despite the fact that the general theory was itself under continuous refinement and remained incomplete at the time of his death. Another hermeneutical device employed is William James' better known and more accessible work which, when juxtaposed with Peirce's ideas, serves to bring them into sharper relief. While general and historical in the presentation of material, this study seeks, at the same time, to engage the criticism of contemporary Peirce scholars in an attempt to account for several of the conundrums inherent in Peirce's work. Among the problems with implications for his philosophy of mind and theory of inquiry are the limitations of his theory of continuity, his negative view of the self, his somewhat ambiguous position on the relation of psychology to logic, and the metaethical puzzle arising from application of his theory of probable inference to truly fateful decisions. These problems provide an interesting perspective and lend balance to the truly insightful contributions Peirce made to the discovery of the mind.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
590
Co-advisor: Martin R. Schnfeld, Ph.D.
Co-advisor: Roy C. Weatherford, Ph.D.
653
Mind
Sign
Self
Consciousness
Pragmatism
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Philosophy
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2658



PAGE 1

Peirce on the Passions: The Role of Instinct, Emotion, a nd Sentiment in Inquiry and Action by Robert J. Beeson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Martin R. Schnfeld, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Roy C. Weatherford, Ph.D. Sidney Axinn, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Stephen P. Turner, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 12, 2008 Keywords: mind, sign, self, consciousness, pragmatism, synechism, habit, belief, self -control, community Copyright 2008, Robert J. Beeson

PAGE 2

Dedication In Memory of Willis H. Truitt

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I wish to recognize several people, without whose contributions this dissertation would not have been completed. I would like to thank Kelly A. Parker and Vanderbilt University Press for permission to reproduce Figure 2.1 from his book The Continuity of Peirces Philosophy, Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press, 1998. I would also like to thank Ma ryann Ayim for permission to reproduce her catalog of the instincts from Peirces writings that appeared in her book Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry Meerut, India: Anu Prakashan, 1982. Portions of Peirces work are reprinte d by permission of the publishers from the COLLECTED PAPERS OF CHARLES SANDER S PEIRCE: volumes 1-6, EDITED BY Charles Harshorne and Paul Weiss; VOLUMES 7-8, edited by Arthur Burks, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard Un iversity Press, Copyright 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. I am indebted to Thomas L. Short for taking the time to answer a number of queries regarding Peirces elusive doctr ine of a signs interpretant. I am grateful to Christopher Hookway for access to his essay Iconicity and Logical Form, and to Richard L. Trammell for providing a copy of his essay Religion, Instinct, and Reason in the Thought of Charles S. Peirce. Joanne Littell tended to the painstaking ta sk of typing and editing the manuscript. My parents, John and Eva Beeson, supplied an abundance of encouragement. Finally, I am indebted beyond all measure, for her boundless patience and support, to my wife, Heather.

PAGE 4

i Tables of Contents List of Figures iii Abstract iv Abbreviations vi Chapter One: The Scope of the Project and an Introduction to Peirces Work 1 A. The Scope and Structure of the Project 1 B. Flashes against a Cimmerian Darkness: Coming to Terms with Peirce 13 Chapter Two: The Modern English History of the Emotions 32 A. Introduction 32 B. Roots of the Emotions 33 C. The Emergence of the Emotions 40 D. Thomas Brown and the Development of the Emotions 48 E. Alexander Bain and the New Psychology 59 F. From Spencer and Darwin to William James 68 Chapter Three: Peirces Semi otic Theory of Emotion 85 A. Streams and Trains: Peirce, James and Consciousness 85 B. Categories and Semiotic 99 C. Peirces General Theory of Signs 114 D. Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion 141 Chapter Four: The Self as Sign 158 A. The Negated Self 158 B. Consciousness, Self and Self-Control 166 C. Self as a Sign 181 Chapter Five: Ineluctable Dualisms and the Limits of Synechism 194 A. Pragmatisms: Peirce and James 194 B. The Bane of Pragmatism 200 C. Peirces Classification of the Sciences 215 D. Intractable Dichotomies 224 E. Self-Control as a Synechistic Strategy 238

PAGE 5

ii Chapter Six: Instinct, Emotion and Sentim ent as Indispensable to Reason 247 A. The Evolution of a Philosophical Role for Instinct 247 B. Instinct, Habit and Inquiry 258 C. Reason and Instinct 274 D. Reason, Emotion and Sentiment 290 Chapter Seven: Community: The Social Instinct 305 A. Inquiry and Community: Th e Social Theory of Logic 305 B. The Nature of Community 307 C. Community, Reality, and Probability 313 D. Agapism 319 E. Community and Normativity 325 References 332 Appendices 349 Appendix A: The 1903 Classifi cation of the Sciences 350 Appendix B: Peirces Drawing of the Serpentine Wall 351 Appendix C: Ayims Catalog of the Instincts 352 About the Author End Page

PAGE 6

iii List of Figures Figure 1. The 1903 Classifica tion of the Sciences 350 Figure 2. Peirces Drawing of the Serpentine Wall 351 Figure 3 Ayims Catalog of the Instincts 352

PAGE 7

iv Peirce on the Passions: The Role of Instinct, Emotion, a nd Sentiment in Inquiry and Action Robert J. Beeson ABSTRACT One of the least explored areas of C. S. Peirces wide range of work is his contributions to psychology and the philosophy of mind. This dissert ation examines the corpus of this work, especially as it relate s to the subjects of mind, habit, instinct, sentiment, emotion, perception, consciousne ss, cognition, and community. The argument is that Peirces contributions to these areas of investigations we re both highly original and heavily influenced by the main intellectual currents of his time. An effort has been made to pr esent Peirces philosophy without apology, within the conceptual framework and idiom of its tim e, and without appeal to a comprehensive view that Peirce, whose notor ious lack of perseverance resulted in many unfinished projects, never articulated. Nevertheless, as several noted interpreters have argued, much of this work can be viewed through the lens of Peirces innovative theory of signs and the notion of the semiotic triad as its central unify ing feature, despite the fact that the general theory was itself under continuous refinement and remained incomplete at the time of his death. Another hermeneutical device employe d is William James better known and more accessible work which, when juxtaposed with Pe irces ideas, serves to bring them into sharper relief.

PAGE 8

v While general and historical in the presentation of material, this study seeks, at the same time, to engage the criticism of c ontemporary Peirce scholars in an attempt to account for several of the conundrums inherent in Peirces work. Among the problems with implications for his ph ilosophy of mind and theory of inquiry are the limitations of his theory of continuity, hi s negative view of the self, his somewhat ambiguous position on the relation of psychology to logic, and the metaethical puzzle aris ing from application of his theory of probable inference to truly fateful decisi ons. These problems provide an interesting perspective and lend balance to the truly insightf ul contributions Peirce made to the discovery of the mind.

PAGE 9

vi Abbreviations CN Charles Sanders Peirce: Contributions to The Nation 3 vols., eds. Kenneth Laine Ketner and James Edward Cook (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1975-1979). CP Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce 8 volumes; vols.1-6 eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 19311935); vols. 7-8 ed. Arthur Burks (Cambr idge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958). All references to writing in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce will appear in the standard form : the volume in Arabic numerals, a period, and the paragraph in the volume cited, using the form CP EP The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings 2 vols., eds. Nathan Houser, Christian Kloesel, and the Pe irce Edition Project (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992-99). HP Historical Perspectives on Peirces Logic of Science 2 vols., ed. Carolyn Eisele (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985). MS The Charles S. Peirce Papers housed at Harvard University. Reference numbers are those developed by Richard Robin, Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1967). NEM The New Elements of Math ematics by Charles S. Peirce 4 vols. in 5, ed. by Carolyn Eisele (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1976). RLT Charles Sanders Peirce, Reasoning and the Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898, ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1992). SS Semiotic and Significs: The Corres pondence Between Charles S. Peirce and Lady Victoria Welby, ed. Charles S. Hardwick with the assistance of James Cook (Bloomington and London: Indi ana University Press, 1977). W Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition 6 vols. (of projected 30), Peirce Edition Project (Bloomington: Indiana Unviersity Press, 1982).

PAGE 10

1 Chapter One The Scope of the Project and an Introduction to Peirces Work He finished almost nothing but he began almost everything. --Hacking, Representing and Intervening A. The Scope and Structure of the Project One of the many disciplines to which Ch arles Sanders Peirce lent insight and originality was psychology. His interest in human nature wa s wide and varied, and, in his fragmentary way, he cont ributed notably to the study of various psychological problems in particular, to pr oblems relating to the threshold of sensation, and to various other problems of the psychology of perception.1 Yet this is perhaps the least explored area of Peirces contributions. There has not been to my knowledge any book-length treatment of Peirces psychology despite his having written extensively on the philosophy of mind. It is the purpose of this dissertation to explore this largely neglected body of work especially as it relates to his theory of signs, his views on habit and instinct, his theory of abduction and his understanding of sensation, emot ion, sentiment, self, and community. A context for this dissertation will be Peir ces doctrine of signs as an essential hermeneutical tool for understanding Peir ces views of emotion and sentiment, Epigraph. Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) 1. Josiah Royce and Fergus Kernan, Peirce as a Philosopher, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 13 (1916): 702.

PAGE 11

2 notwithstanding the incompletene ss of his general theory of signs. The reason for using this theory as a backdrop for discussion of these matters is my agreement with David Savan that the concept of the semiotic triad2 is the central unity in Peirces philosophy, from beginning to end, and the closest thi ng we have to a constant in Peirces own methodology despite his constant refinement of the details.3 This is not to argue that there is an essential Peircean viewpoint. On the contrary, I tend to side with those interpreters of Peirce who for many of the reasons cited below, fail to find in his writings an indication of single-mindedness and inst ead see a great deal of disparity and occasional contradiction. This feature of Peirces work is, however, less marked in the semiotic which, while it evolved over the sp an of his career, remained the unifying feature of his work. Peirces basic philos ophical hypothesis is that everything is an actual sign.4 Moreover: Peirce uniformly holds (1) that ther e is no such thing as a sign in isolation, every sign being a constituent of a sequential set of signs, so that apart from membership in this set, a thing has no meaning; and (2) that in the sequential movement of signs thus ordered, the meaning of the earlier ones in the series is provided by or constituted by the later ones as their interpretants, until a conclusion ( logical as a matter of course) is reached. Indeed, Peirce adhe res so consistently to this view that he says, more than once, that signs, as such form an infinite series, so that no conclusion of reasoning is forever final, being inherently open to having its meaning modified by further signs.5 2. Following from Peirces assertion that all thinking is in signs and that everything is a sign, the triad is the structure and action of semiosis that is established from the relations that stand among the representamen (the sign), its object (the thing represented by the representamen), and an interpretant (the meaning of the sign). 3. David Savan, The Unity of Peirces Thought, in L.W. Sumner, John G. Slater, and Fred Wilson, eds., Pragmatism and Purpose (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 10. 4. Ibid., 11. 5. John Dewey, Peirces Theory of Signs, Thought, and Meaning, The Journal of Philosophy 43 (1946), 88.

PAGE 12

3 I will endeavor to treat th e subject matter in a critical manner, without attempting to provide a comprehensive position that Peirce himself never fully articulated. Instead, my intention will be to show how Peirce s work addressed problems within the philosophy of mind of his own time and provided penetrating insight into some of these issues. I will thus seek to avoid what Thomas Dixon terms presentism or the imposing of the assumptions, theories and terminologi es of contemporary academic psychology upon theories of emotion of the ei ghteenth and nineteenth centuries.6 This becomes extremely important in the matter of psyc hological language and categories where the equivocation of terms such as sentiments, feeling, passions, sensation, sentiments, and emotion is unwarrante d. The philosophical method herein employed will, therefore, be in part historical in na ture and will begin in ch apter two with a brief overview of the development of nineteenth century psychology. Notwithstanding Peirces well documented debt to Kant and his comprehensive knowledge of the laboratory researches of Wilhelm Wundt, Hermann von Helmholtz, and Gustav Fechner (Wundt granted Pe irce the translation rights to Vorlesungen ber die Menschenund Thierseele in 1869, Peirce translated a portion of Helmholtzs Handbuch der physiologischen Optik in 1871, and made a study of Fechners Elemente der Psychophysik in 1869),7 I will argue that his views owe more to and are for the most part better understood in the context of nineteenth century Britis h and American psychology. 6. Thomas Dixon, From Passions to Emotion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 13. See also his rationale for using the term psychology to refer to pre-scient ific uses of the term. 7. Max Fisch, A Chronicle of Pragmaticism, in Kenneth Laine Ketner and Christian J. W. Kloesel, eds. Peirce, Semiotic and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 119-120.

PAGE 13

4 His writings on the topics covered in this dissertation were often in response to the claims of James and John Stuart Mill, Alexander Bain, Herbert Spencer, William Hamilton and, of course, Charles Darwin. Chapter two will be a brief study of this history. The case of Bain is of special interest in that his theory of belief was a cornerstone in the development of pragmatism by the Meta physical Club of Ca mbridge in the early 1870s. This Club, which counted among its memb ers not only Peirce but Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., William James, Chauncey Wright, and attorney Nicholas Green, was well read in the writings of Bain.8 [Green] eloquently urged the importance of Bains definition of belief as that upon which a man is prepared to act, from which pragmatism is scarce more than a corollary.9 On the other hand, as we shall see, Peirces cognitivist psychology was strongly opposed to Bains phys icalist associationism and when in critical retrospect, Peirce detected traces of psychologism in his early and best known papers on pragmatism he may have been thinking of Bains influence. The brief history of psychology in the ni neteenth century English speaking world presented in chapter two will be an attempt to trace its evolution from the moral sentimentalists of the late ei ghteenth century, through the 1820 Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind by the physician Thomas Brown10 to its apex in the 1890 8. Fisch, Alexander Bain and the Genealogy of Pragmatism in Peirce Semeiotic, and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch, 93. 9. Ibid., 81, and is drawn from CP 2.267, 4.233, 4.613. 10. Thomas Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind 4 vols. (Edinburgh: W. and C. Tait, 1820).

PAGE 14

5 publication of William James Principles of Psychology.11 Here, I will rely heavily on two recent works: Thomas Dixons From Passions to Emotions12 and Rick Rylances Victorian Psychology and British Culture Dixons chief argument is that of a growing secularization within psychology that culminat ed in the creation of the category of the emotions. Rylances contention is that there were only two schools of psychology in Victorian England: the A priori School and Associationism.13 In this context, the drama of nineteenth century psychology is played out on both sides of the Atlantic. The focus of this history will be on the development of the category of emotion which appeared for the first time in the English language in Humes Treatise on Human Nature but was only refined in Browns Lectures in which emotions was the term adopted for all those feelings that were neither sensations no r intellectual states.14 This development was important for a variety of re asons that will be explored in some depth. Essentially, experimental psychol ogy was in its infancy and begi nning to assert itself as a science and as such, developing a terminol ogy apart from that of both philosophy and theology. The language of passions, affecti ons, and sentiments was giving way to a non-theistic, non-moral and non-cognitive unde rstanding of emotion, reflecting a growing secularism and the influence of Darwinism in intellectual circles. Chapter three will examine Peirces gene ral theory of signs, in particular his semiotic theory of emotion. This will entail an overview of Peirce s three categories as 11. William James, The Principles of Psychology 2 vols. (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1890). All references will be to Dover Publica tions edition (New York: Dover Publications, 1950). 12. Thomas Dixon, From Passions to Emotions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 13. Rick Rylance, Victorian Psychology and British Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 41-43. 14. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 23.

PAGE 15

6 essential to understanding the semiotic Quality or Firstne ss, Relation or Secondness, and Representation or Thirdness. Within the c ontext of Representati on are two of Peirces axioms asserted continually throughout his care er. First, all thought is in signs. We have no power of thinking without signs.15 Peirce defined a sign in a number of ways.16 At one time he wrote, a sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, cal led its Object, as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant.17 But perhaps the most oft-quoted definition is that [a] sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.18 Secondly, so pervasive is thought, so general is the th eory of signs that, whatever else anything may be, it is also a sign.19 Or as he put it on another occasion, this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs.20 So broad is Peirces understanding of sign as to encompass the notion of self as a sign,21 an idea that will be explored in some detail in chapter four. From there it can be expanded further to embrace the concept of community as a social principle of logic and as product 15. CP 5.253, 2.265. Note that It was at the age of twenty-eight, in 1868, in the second number of the second volume of the first philosophical journal in the English language, that Peirce committed himself to this doctrine that all thought is in signs; and in the remaining forty-six years of his life he found no reason to abandon it. Max H. Fisch, Just How General Is Peirces General Theory of Signs? in Ketner and Kloesel, eds., Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch 358. 16. 76 Definitions of The Sign by C. S. Peir ce, collected and analyzed by Robert Marty; see Arisbe website, http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/libra ry/resources/76defs/76defs/htm (accessed August 2008). 17. CP 2.274. 18. CP 2.228. 19. Fisch, Just How General Is Peirces General Theory of Signs? in Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism, 357. 20. CP 5.448, endnote. 21. CP 5.313.

PAGE 16

7 of the social instinct,22 and as the final arbiter of truth, a topic we will take up chapter seven. It can also be narrowed to incorpor ate pets, plants, pronouns and possibilities: All thinking is by signs; and the brutes use signs. But they perhaps rarely think of them as signs.23 Even plants make their living by uttering signs 24 Pronouns are words whose whole object is to indicate what kind of collateral observation must be ma de in order to determine the significance of some other part of sentence. Which directs us to seek the quaesitum in the previous context; the personal pronouns to observe who is the speaker, who is the hearer, etc.25 But other signs, such as the word the , in the sense in which the is a single word, consist, each of them, in something being possible. I call such things May-bes, perhaps better Can-bes26 As Peirce summarized so effectively: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which mediates between an object and an interpretant in reference to the object, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this sign. The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign.27 It is clear from these quotations that for Pe irce, semiosis is dual faceted. Peirce was prepared to understand semeiosis in either of two ways: (1) from the side of the sign, as sign-action the functioning of a sign, or (2) from the side of the interpretant, as sign22. CP 5.311, 5.534; see Brent, Peirce: A Life, 73. 23. CP 5.534. 24. MS 318, 205; quoted in Brent, Peirce: A Life 311. 25. MS 318; quoted in EP 2:406. 26. Letter to William James, 25 December 1909, quoted in EP 2:500. 27. MS 318, quoted in EP 2:410.

PAGE 17

8 interpreting or inferring from signs.28 As Vincent Colapietro stated it: Any interpretant can itself function as a sign; that is, repres ent an object and genera te an interpretant.29 It is the role of the interpretant that is the key to unlocking Peirces understanding of emotion as a sign of feeli ngs rather than immediately in tuited feelings, a view that Peirce firmly denied. As some critics have noted, Peirce suffered from triadomania, a fact that will become abundantly cl ear as we progress in our st udy. He saw three irreducible phenomenological categories where Aristotle had seen ten and Kant twelve. He saw three kinds of representations: icons, indices, and symbols or interp retants, and, predictably, he saw trichotomies of interpretants. One such trichotomy was (1) emotional interpretants, (2) energetic interpretants, and (3) logical interpre tants. The emotional interpretant is a feeli ng or a quality, the energetic is an e ffort or activity, and the logical is a deliberately formed habit, a general. All thr ee are closely connected to Peirces view of the emotions as signs. Our examination of the interpretant w ill lead us into the study of Peirces classification of the sciences as anothe r necessary component for understanding his psychology and his view of emotions as signs. This will be the subject of chapter five. Semiotic, which Peirce came to see as subsuming logic, is one of three normative sciences. The others are aesthetics and ethics. As we will see, Peirce viewed logic, which is concerned with truth and whose good end is to represent something, as relying upon ethics for principles of self-control in performing correct reasoning. Ethics, which is 28. Fisch, Peirces General Theory of Signs, in Peirce, Semeiotic and Pragmatism, 329 (italics mine). 29. Vincent Colapeitro, Peirces Approach to the Self: A Semiotic Perspective on Human Subjectivity (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 57

PAGE 18

9 concerned with the right and whose good end is self-regulated action, in turn relies upon aesthetics for the notion of the summum bonum. It is aesthetics, which is concerned with the beautiful and whose good end is feelings. The relation betw een logic and ethics is of particular interest as it provi des a backdrop for the study of th e essential role of sentiment and emotion in rational inquiry. Collectively, the normative sciences ar e grounded in phenomenology and its ubiquitous elements of Firstn ess, Secondness, and Thirdness.30 Metaphysics, as that which attempts to discern the reality of pheno mena, represents the third grand division of philosophy, follows from the normative scienc es. Psychology, upon which Peirce voiced disparate views, was usually placed with the sp ecial or observational sciences and seen as descriptive in nature. Certa inly it was no disparagement of psychology to place it lower than semeiotic in the clas sification of the sciences.31 It was only being viewed as less general than semiotic. In its later development, Peirces interpretant was not necessarily an individual mind, an interpreter. To view it as such would be a violation of Peirces consistent opposition to psychologism, the view, so prevalent in his time, that logic is based on psychology. Yet Peirces supposed une quivocal opposition to psychologism is not above question. The doubt/belief dichotomy the irritation of doubt that we seek to escape for the satisfaction of belief which formed the basis of his 1878 iteration of pragmatism, and which was subject to his own la ter critical analysis, is just one example of how Peirces work was left open to linge ring charges of psychologism, charges that 30. CP 5.121. 31. Fisch, Peirces General Theory of Signs, in Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism 343.

PAGE 19

10 became more widespread as the more subjective forms of pragmatism gained in popularity. The consistency and force of Pe irces critique of psychologism, hence, depends in the last analysis on the coge ncy and legitimacy of his understanding of logic.32 Pragmatism was, after all, developed by Peirce as merely a maxim of logic. I make pragmatism to be a mere maxim of logic instead of a sublime principle of speculative philosophy. In order to be admitted to better philosophical standing I have end eavored to put pragmatism as I understand it into the same form of a philosoph ical theorem.33 Pragmatism proposes a certain ma xim which, if sound, must render needless any further rule as to the admissibility of hypotheses to rank as hypotheses, that is to say, as explan ations of phenomena held as hopeful suggestions; and, furthermore, this is all that the maxim of pragmatism really pretends to do, at least so far as it is confined to logic, and is not understood as a proposition in psychology.34 The question of Peirces psychologism will be ra ised in a variety of contexts throughout this work. Our study of Peirces unders tanding of the inte rpretant will be expanded into the discussion of the place of sentiment and emo tion in Peirces philosophy as indispensable to reason and, moreover, to basic decision making and action. This will be the subject of chapter six. This discussion will be set in a more general treatment of Peirces understanding of sensation which, in turn, will entail a study of Peirces belief that a capacity for feeling and a propensity for habit-taking are comm on to all protoplasm within the context of instinct, which Peirce sometimes referred to as half-conscious 32. Vincent Colapietro, C.S. Peirces Critique of Psychologism, in Dale Jacquette, ed., Philosophy, Psychology, and Psychologism (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), 173. 33. CP 5.18. 34. CP 5.196.

PAGE 20

11 inference.35 The respective roles of instinct a nd habit and the theory of abduction as instinct will also be examined as will tw o notions Peirce borrowed from medieval philosophy and made extensive use of: logica utens and logica docens. As we will see, logica utens is closely tied to the notions of instinct and il lume naturale as the instinct for correctly guessing the laws of nature. This will lead naturally into Peirces no tion of the social instinct for community and his view of the scientific community of inquirers engaged in investigation and pursuit of the ideal of truth, the subject of chapter seven. Peirce was in this sense a communitarian. As early as 1868, he had galvanized this ideal community in his mind so that he proclaimed [t]he individual man, si nce his separate existence is manifested only by ignorance and error is only a negation.36 The individual in isolation could not fruitfully or genuinely undertake the pursu it of knowledge, which was obtainable only as the individual identified his or her interests with those of the community of inquirers working through the ages: This community, again, must not be limited, but must extend to all races of beings with whom we can come into immediate or mediate intellectual relation. It must re ach, however vaguely, beyond this geological epoch, beyond all bounds. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the whole world, is as it seems to me, illogical in all his inferences, collectively. Logic is rooted in the social principle.37 Conversely, nine years earlier, Peirce had written, He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the whole world, is ill ogical in all his inferenc es, collectively. So the 35. CP 6.238-271, 6.570. 36. CP 5.317 37. CP 2.654.

PAGE 21

12 social principle is rooted intrinsically in logic.38 In regard to the social principle, Peirce spoke of three logical sentiments presupposed in reasoning namely (1) interest in an indefinite community (2) recognition of the possibility of this interest being made supreme, and (3) hope of the unlimited c ontinuance of intellectual activity as indispensable requirements of logic.39 He explained elsewhere that the notion of an indefinite community is the source of his understanding of reality and idealized truth. The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you. Thus, the very origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception es sentially involves the notion of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits and capable of a definite increase of knowledge.40 As he was quick to acknowledge, it may seem strange that a man of science would put forward three sentiments as requirements of logic. But, when we consider that logic depends on a mere struggle to escape doubt, which, as it terminates in action, must begin in emotion, and that, furthermore, the only cause of our planting ourselves on reason is that other methods of escaping doubt fail on account of the social impulse, why should we wonder to find social sentiment presupposed in reasoning?41 Chapter seven will further explore the foundational connecti on between emotion and correct reasoning, begun in chapter five, in the contex t of the indefinite community. Far from presenting a unified, systematic theory of emotion, sentiment, passions, feelings, and instincts and their relation to r eason, Peirces writings on these subjects are 38. CP 5.354. 39. CP 2.655. 40. CP 5.311. 41. CP 2.655.

PAGE 22

13 fragmentary and merely suggestive. Indeed, we may occasionally find ourselves resonating with William James words to Henry Bowditch, the grandson of the famous mathematician and astronomer, Nathaniel Bowditch: I have just been quit by Charles S. Peirce, with whom I have been talking about a couple of articles in the St. Louis Journal of Speculative Philosophy by him which I have just read. They are exceedingly bold, subtle and incomprehensible and I ca nt say that his vocal elucidations help me a great deal to their unders tanding, but they neve rtheless interest me strangely.42 These same essays, which contain much of Peirces most important thinking on these matters, and which will be examined in some detail are, to some degree, as James describes them. Yet, I will argue, they are insightful, like so much of Peirces work anticipatory of twentieth century themes, and thus important. For examples, we need only point to his cognitive view of emotion, the ev idence of what some have taken as an early articulation of behaviorism, and his views on community that foresaw some of the basic tenets of sociobiology. We should bear in mind that [s]ince Peirce was himself an experimental psychologist, perhaps the first on the American continent, and once thought of giving up logic for psychology, his views on these matters, while never central to his philosophical pursuits, are nevertheless noteworthy.43 42. Henry James, ed., The Letters of William James 2 vols. (Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1920), 1:149 (letter dated 1/24/1869). 43. Fisch, Peirces General Theory of Signs, in Peirce, Semeiotic and Pragmatism, 343.

PAGE 23

14 B. Flashes against a Cimmerian Darkness: Coming to Terms with Peirce The philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce is, at turns, one of the most enigmatic and fecund bodies of work produced in the Anglophone world during the past two centuries. Peirce was an eccentric, a strange and unruly being,44 who, working almost continuously from early adulthood, produced over 80,000 pages of manuscript and 12,000 pages of published papers on a wide range of subjects but managed to bring only one book into print, an 1878 collection of as tronomical calculations and suggestions entitled Photometric Researches .45 Morris R. Cohen assayed the value of his labor and his place in American thought when he wrot e, If philosophic eminence were measured not by the number of finished treatises of dignified length but by th e extent to which a man brought forth new and fruitful ideas of ra dical importance, then Peirce would easily be the greatest figure in American Philosophy.46 His work, largely carried out in a penurious and eremitic existence as a result of his ostracism by the academy, is mostly in the form of essays and reviews. Josiah Royce, perhaps the only contemporary to possess a comprehensive grasp of Peirces thought,47 stated the obvious when he wrote: 44. William James quoted by Joseph Brent, in Joseph Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 16. 45. Nathan Houser estimates that Peirces exta nt writings would fill a hundred octavo volumes. Charles Sanders Peirce, The Essential Peirce ed. Peirce Edition Project (1998), 2:xii. 46. William P. Trent, John Erksine, Stuart P. Sherman, and Carl Van Doren, eds., Cambridge History of English and American Litera ture: An Encyclopedia in 18 volumes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and New York: Putnams Sons, 1907-21), vol. 17, Later National Literature, Part II, Later Philosophy, Charles S. Peirce. 26; see Bartleby.com, http://www.bartleby.com/227/ 1018.html (accessed August 2008). The citation: Ward & Trent et al. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1907 -21), New York: Bartleby.com, 2000, http// www.bartleby.com/cambridge (accessed July 2008). 47. In the first of his 1914 Be rkeley Conferences, Royce made the following reference to a missive from Peirce after sending him his recently published The Problem of Christianity : Peirce received the volumes in May, 1913. He was then slowly dying of an incurable malady. He wrote me a very kind letter of acknowledgment which I deeply prize, and which showed that my so belated effort to understand and to

PAGE 24

15 It is not always easy to understand Peirce Upon occasion he could be brilliantly clear in his expression s of highly complex and recondite problems, although this clearness was a capricious fact in his life and writings. One finds this tendency toward what might be called impenetrability especially eviden t in his manuscripts. Too often the reader meets with a thought of surpassing brilliancy and follows it eagerly, only to have it disappear lik e the cuttlefish in an inky blackness of its own secretion.48 The problem stemmed from several fact ors. For one thing, Peirce seemed to delight in opacity. He deliberat ely chose that most of his researches should be concerned with highly technical topics and should be secure from the intrusion of the uncalled.49 Peirces most original work was in logic, and it was as a logician that he wished always to be identified. Given the place of logic in nineteenth century American philosophy, this was enough to keep his readership small. Afte r a lecture series on Pragmatism, which had been arranged for Peirce by Royce and William James at Harvard University so that he might advance himself professionally and procure some badly needed funds, James discouraged Peirces suggestion that the se ven poorly attended lectures be published. Counting himself among those in the audien ce who had found the lectures abstruse, James wrote to Peirce As things stand it is only highly skilled technicians and professionals who will sniff the rare perf ume of your thought and, after you are dead, expound the side of his opinions wh ich was in question in this book, ha d received, despite his feebleness and his age, a reasonable and an une xpectedly careful, although necessar ily a very summary attention, and that my interpretation of him gained on the whole his approval. Josiah Royces Late Writings: A Collection of Unpublished and Scattered Works ed. Frank M. Oppenheim, (Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press, 2001), 2:4. 48. Josiah Royce and Fergus Ke rnan, Peirce as a Philosopher, The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 13 (1916): 707. 49. Ibid.

PAGE 25

16 trace things back to your genius.50 Peirce stubbornly resisted the repeated suggestion of James that he seek to gain notice through the popularization of his ideas. Ironically, it was James, from 1898 on, who was to gain notor iety from popularizing a few of Peirces leading ideas first presented in the lively discussions of the Metaphysical Club of the 1870s to which both had belonged. For the most part, however, Peirces thought remained bewildering to James, who by hi s own admission had no head for mathematics and little interest in logic, and was experi enced by him as flashes of brilliant light relieved against Cimmerian darkness51 Without James gracious attribution to Peirce as the source of Pragmatism, Peirce might well have become a footnote in the history of American thought.52 Another factor was Peirces incapac ity for linguistic expression and the difficulty he had in putting his thoughts into wo rds, reflecting what he saw in himself as a peculiar bent of mind organically rooted in his left-handedness, a fact causing him to think diagrammatically rather than verbally.53 Though his prose could occasionally be elegant, Peirce was somewhat confounded by E nglish and found it as challenging as any foreign language54 again believing it to be a reflec tion of his disposition. Peirce, in comparing himself to James, who was by cont rast a splendid stylist, remarked, Who could be of a nature so different from his as I? He is so concrete, so living; I a mere 50. Charles Sanders Peirce, Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism ed., Patricia Ann Turrisi (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 16. 51. William James, Pragmatism (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907), 5. 52. Ibid., 6. 53. Joseph Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 15. 54. See Beverly Kent, Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences, (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens Univers ity Press, 1987), Appendix 2:207.

PAGE 26

17 table of contents, so abstr act, a very snarl of twine.55 In a constant attempt at greater precision, Peirce was given to making up new terms to suit the purpose of the moment, stipulating the technical sense in which each te rm was to be understood only to later alter its meaning without notice, thus serving only the purpose of furt her obfuscation. In a 1908 letter to the British semiotician, Lady Victoria Welby, Peirce recalled a chance encounter with the writer and critic W.D. Howe lls that serves to illustrate the problem. I remember one day, when I was in the twenties, on my way to the postoffice, I fell in with the novelist William D. Howells, who began by criticizing one of my articles from the point of view of rh etorical elegance. I said to him, Mr. Howells, it is no part of the purpose of my writings to give readers pleasure. Such an idea was quite out of his horizon; and I heard of his repeating it as very amusing. People do not consult an encyclopaedia to be amused, but to receive definite instruction as condensed as clearness permits.56 Maryann Ayim observed that one of the most characteristic features of Peirces writing is its organic nature. Hi s ideas are so closely interw oven with one another that they can be fully grasped only within their total context, in their relationships with one another.57 Peirce was, as Richard Rorty has ch arged, a most traditional philosopher who was forever seeking a first philosophy, an epistemological ground for science in his reduction of the Kantian categories.58 His writings reflect a commitment to constant rearrangement of his arguments relative to his thinking about those categories. The result is less than a systematic presentation as Peter Skagestad summarizes very well: 55. CP 6.184. 56. CP 8.378. 57. Maryann Ayim, Retroduction: The Rational Instinct, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 10 (1974): 39. 58. Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1982), 160-1.

PAGE 27

18 Peirce was, or aspired to be, a syst ematic thinker. Consequently, his various fragmentary writings abound with cross-references, as well as references to an overarching archi tectonic system, which is nowhere set fully set forth [I]n the course of his long and productive career Peirce repeatedly changed his mind; these changes are sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not. At times even the acknowledgements are retracted, so Peirce changed his mind over whether or not he had changed his mind.59 Hence, it is impossible to determine which of several versions Peir ce consigned to paper is the one intended for interp retation. As Umberto Eco point s out, Peirce was compelled continuously to re-discuss and revise his ideas. He felt a sort of psychological pleasure in challenging and re-defining his own formulas; it is rather difficult to find two separate passages on a same topic in which he does not contradict and re-p ropose what he has previously said.60 The result is, at the very least, confusing. As Rulon Wells bluntly stated, every student of Peirce has found incons istencies in him; respects in which he talks out of both sides of his mouth, or tries to have it both ways, or moves in different directions.61 As we will see below, the hermen eutical problem is further compounded by the state of his literary rema ins and the fact that Peirce da ted less than one fourth of his extant manuscripts.62 His linguistic disability which he believ ed stemmed from his left-handedness, is coupled with what Peirce referred to as his pedestrianism, his deliberate, tortoise-paced method of thinking which, late in life, he described in a letter to the mathematician Cassius J. Keyser: 59. Peter Skagestad, Road of Inquiry (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), 1-2. 60. Umberto Eco, Peirces Notion of Interpretant, Modern Language Notes 91 (1976): 1457. 61. Rulon Wells, Peirces Notion of the Symbol, Semiotica 19 (1977): 198. 62. Thomas L. Short, Review article in Synthese 3 (March 1996) 106:409.

PAGE 28

19 But I am left-handed; and I often th ink that means that I do not use my brain in the way that the mass of men do, and that peculiarity betrays itself also in my ways of thinking. Hence, I have always labored under the misfortune of being thought ori ginal. Upon a set subject, I am likely to write worse than any man of equal practice I am not naturally a writer, but as far from being so as any man. If I have ever written anything well, it was because the ideas were exerting a tremendous tension, almost to the bursting point. Moreover, I write much better when I have a definite proposition to prove. It should also not be intricate; for otherwise my mental left-handedness makes me express myself in a way that to a normal mind seems almost inconceivably awkward.63 In an unpublished manuscript, Pe irce elaborated, revealing that he knew the brains left hemisphere is the normal center of speech: I will remark, by the way that I am le d to surmise that this awkwardness is connected with the fact that I am left-handed. For that my lefthandedness is not a mere accidental ha bit, but has some organic cause seems to be evidenced by the fact that when I left the last school where it had attracted attention, I wrote with facility with my right hand, but could not write legibly with my left; and yet when I ceased to make the effort to continue this habit of three years standing, I soon fell back to using my left hand, though I have always used knife, fork, and spoon, at table just as others do [(crossed out) Now supposing that my cerebral organ of speech is on the left side as in other people ] Now, since my heart is placed as usual, it would seem that the connections between different parts of my brain must be different from the usual and presumably best arrangement; and if so, it would necessarily follow that my thinking should be gauche .64 The result was his propensity to approach work in a very deliberate, methodical, and self-critical fashion that required going over and over his results and repeatedly making modifications. In a letter to the Br itish pragmatist, F.S.C. Schiller, Peirce described his philosophical appr oach in the following terms: I must tell you that my practice has always been when I had said my say on any subject, to turn round upon myself and say, Oh, pooh! I dont 63. Brent, Peirce: A Life, 43. 64. Peirce, MS 632, quoted in Kent (1980), Appendix 2: 208.

PAGE 29

20 believe a word of it, and to devot e myself seriously to trying to appreciate the other side of the que stion; after which I let my mind lie fallow about it for several years and then reexamine it. And this I do repeatedly.65 This fact of Peirces methodology can be maddening to those attempting to weave the dangling and incongruent threads of so many drafts into a unified thesis as evidenced by the many different results. His interpreters have not agreed on the essential nature of Peirces contributions or his identity as a systematic philo sopher. Overall evaluation of Peirces work has ranged widely. Some interpreters claim to have discovered a continuous, unified theme in his work, while others have seen only the fragmented, unfinished, ambivalent and, ultimately self-refuting elements.66 By way of example, in Charles Peirces Empiricism67 Justus Buchler believed he had seen in Peirce an inchoate form of Logical Positivism. Conversely, Joseph Esposito in Evolutionary Metaphysics68 believed that the unity was to be uncovered in his cosmology. Indeed, in the end it is difficult to produce a unified treatment of a philosopher who seems to incorporate the anti-metaphysical prejudices of a critical philo sopher of language with a predisposition to speculative metaphysics derived from Hegel and the German idealists.69 Others, Thomas Goudge and Murray Mu rphey among them have emphasized the disunity in Peirces philosophy. Goudge saw onl y a tough-minded naturalism joined to a 65. MS Max H. Fisch Collection, Peirce Edition Project, quoted in Douglas R. Anderson, Strands of System (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1995), 28. 66. See Carl R. Hausman, Charles S. Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) for an excellent assessment of the various treatments of Peirces interpreters. 67. Justus Buchler, Charles Peirces Empiricism (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1939). 68. Joseph Esposito, Evolutionary Metaphysics (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980). 69. Christopher Hookway, Peirce (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985), 2.

PAGE 30

21 tender-minded and incongruent transcendentalis m while Murphey chose to deal with the disparate elements by postul ating four separate syste ms each in turn abandoned by Peirce and all of them remaining unfinished products. To make matters worse, the interpreters of Peirce lack clarity in what they perceive in one anothers inte rpretations. For instance, in the case of Peter Skagestads The Road of Inquiry,70 Carl R. Hausman believes he ha s a kindred spirit whose treatment comes close to his own in discerning an essential unity71 while Christopher Hookway finds the worst kind of interpretation, one th at [recommends] that interpretation should focus on Peirces contributions to relatively sma ll concrete issues, with attempts to grasp the systematic importance of his thought being postponed.72 Then there is the example of Richard Rorty, the renowned and in some sense most derisive of Peirces critics. Rorty saw Peirce as antithetical to the great (i.e. James and Dewey) pragmatists most important and radical contribution as opposing standard, academic, neo-Kantian, epistemologically-centered philosophy. 73 For Rorty, Peirce embodies traditional western ph ilosophical attempts to constr uct theories of truth or theories of knowledge or the ories of morality that have, over the course of twentyfive hundred years, failed to adequately resolve even one of its own problems.74 Peirces program of making philosophy more naturalist ic and desire to rescue the good ship Philosophy for the service of Science from the hands of lawless rovers of the sea of 70. Peter Skagestad, Road of Inquiry: Charles Peirces Pragmatic Realism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981). 71. Hausman, Charles S. Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy xvi. 72. Hookway, Peirce, 2. 73. Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), 160 74. Ibid.

PAGE 31

22 literature was anathema to the late Rort ys views concerning the real business of philosophy and the true contribution of prag matism, as can be seen in the following quotations.75 As soon as a program to put philosophy on the secure path of science succeeds, it simply converts philosophy into a boring academic specialty.76 Pragmatism has gradually broken the hist orical links that once connected it to empiricism.77 Philosophy is best seen as a kind of writing. It is delimited, as is any literary genre, not by form or matter, but by tradition a family romance involving, e.g. Father Parmenides, honest old Uncle Kant, and, bad brother Derrida.78 All Rorty could bring himself to say in Peir ces favor was that despite his undeserved apotheosis, his contribution to pragmatism wa s merely to have given it a name, and to have stimulated James.79 This dismissive assessment followed almost twenty years Rortys complimentary remarks that he wanted to suggest that Peirces thought envisaged and repudiated in advance, the stages in the development of empiricism which logical empiricism represented, and that it came to rest in a group of insights and a ph ilosophical mood much like those we find in the Philosophical Investigations and in the writings of philosophers 75. CP 5.449. In CP 1.33 Peirce wrote: As for that phrase s tudying in a literary spirit, there is nothing more nauseating to a scientific man. 76. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 384-5 77. Richard Rorty, introduction to John P. Murphy, Pragmatism From Peirce to Davidson (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1990), 4 78. Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism, 92. 79. Ibid., 161.

PAGE 32

23 influenced by the later Wittgenstein.80 These remarks from an intellect no less praiseworthy than Rorty further serve to demonstrate just how resistant to facile classification and summarization Peirce remain s. In a typical understatement, Van Quine said, Peirce does not lend himsel f to single-minded interpretation.81 One further factor abetting Pe irces impenetrability is the unfortunate fate of his manuscripts. In reconstructing Peirces posit ion, the expositor cannot avoid considering texts from quite differe nt phases in Peirces intellectual career. Accordingly, apparent incons istencies might be resolved by a consideration of the chronological development of Peirces sustained reflections on logical topics. But th is difficulty itself points to yet another one: the somewhat chaotic state of Peirces manuscripts often makes it difficult to reconstruct w ith the requisite accuracy the actual chronology of Peirces philosophical development.82 In reference to the disarray of his papers just on logic, Peirce himself remarked: I must tell you that all that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains unpublished. Most of it, I suppose has been written down; but no human being could ever put together the fragments. I could not myself do so.83 80. Rorty goes on to say that In particul ar, Peirce and Wittgenstein complement each other especially well; one presents you with a bewildering and wonderfully abstract apparatus of categories; the other shoves you into very particular puzzles. Peirce s odd numerological categorie s, just because they are so abstract and so far from the cliches of the history of philosophy, are perhaps the best handles for grasping what one learns from Wittgenstein. Conv ersely, Wittgensteins riddles and aphorisms, just because they are so fresh and fragmentary, let one s ee the point of some of Peirces darker writings. Richard Rorty, Pragmatism, Categories, and Language, Philosophical Review 70, 199. 81. W.V.O. Quine, The Pragmatists Place in Empiricism, in Robert J. Mulvaney and Philip M. Zeltner, eds, Pragmatism: Its Sources and Prospects (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1981), 32. 82. Colapietro, Peirces Critique of Psychologism, in Jacquette, ed., Philosophy, Psychology, and Psychologism 165. 83. Nathan Houser, The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Peirce Papers, published in Signs of Humanity, vol. 3, Michel Balat and Janice DelledalleRhodes, eds, (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992), 1259-1268; see http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/libra ry/aboutcsp/houser/fortunes.htm (accessed July 2008).

PAGE 33

24 When Peirce died in 1914, Royce arranged with his widow for the sale of his library and literary remains to Harvard University. Roy ce, who in 1912 had had a Peircean Insight after re-reading Peirces early writings on logic,84 was eager to pore over the papers. Royce and his graduate assistant, W. Fergus Kernan, went to work sorting and cataloging the pages but were soon daunted by the ta sk of arranging the body of manuscript: A first lecture (of the Lowell Lectures on Pragmatism, [1903]) would be found at the top of one group of manuscripts prominently located on the right edge of Royces long study table. Then three piles further on (and two days later) one would discover Lecture No. 2 firmly wedged between a lengthy dissertation on T he Doctrine of Chances [1878] with pages unnumbered and a small, intensely interesting, treatise On the Prospect of Air-Sailing [ MS 1014 and part of 1013, circa 1901].85 Royce died suddenly in 1916 before managi ng to bring any semblance of order to the papers. Kernan left Harvard for the Army and the papers lay fallow for much of the next ten years. Morris Cohen did manage to prepare a volume of Peirces previously published essays under the intriguing title, Chance, Love and Logic86 in 1923. It was not, however, until the late twenties when Charle s Hartshorne, a newly minted Ph.D. and a family friend of the department chairman, James Houghton Woods, was retained by Harvard solely for the purpose, that a full edi tion of the manuscripts was undertaken. It is 84. Royce wrote, in part: Although I long knew Peirce personally, and have been for many years interested in his theories, there were some aspect s of Peirces theory of knowledge which I never understood until, in connection with my own efforts to work out the relations of my philosophy of loyalty to other branches of philosophy, and, in particular, in connection with my review of the problem of the essence of Christianity, I was lead [ sic] to reread some of Peirces ea rly logical contributions, and to reconsider the way in which these hi s earlier theories had worked themselves out in the form which some of his later studies indicate. Then I came to see, with increasing clearness, that Peirces whole career as a student of logic and of scientific method was devoted to a few fairly simple and obvious ideas, which have nevertheless been very imperfectly understood, just as great and obvious ideas usually are neglected and misunderstood. Oppenheim, ed., Josiah Royces Late Writings vol. 1e:19. 85. Fergus Kernan, The Peirce Manusc ripts and Josiah Royce A Memoir, Transactions of the Charles Peirce Society 1 (1965): 93. 86. Charles S. Peirce, Chance, Love, and Logi c: Philosophical Essays ed., Morris R. Cohen, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc. 1923).

PAGE 34

25 clear from the evidence that the papers were in a state of neglect and disarray when C.I. Lewis escorted Hartshorne to the workroom in or around 1925.87 Harvard graduate Paul Weiss soon joined himself to the project, and after three years, a six-volume edition of the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce was complete though not published until 1931-35. Despite rekindling an interest in Peirce, the Collected Papers were for the purposes of critical research anything but id eal. Hartshorne and Weiss made some fateful choices that compromised th e value of their work: It was decided that Peirces writi ngs (except for his scientific and mathematical writings, which, though voluminous and important, were hardly considered at all) would be organized thematically according to Peirces classification of the sc iences, and to further that end chronological and textual consider ations were given low priority. Lecture series were broken apart and published in separate volumes, single papers were cut in two, and under a single title might appear excerpts from writings composed more than thirty years apart.88 Ever since, Peircean scholarship has been hampered by the topical arrangement of the Collected Papers and the constraints that Harvard placed upon Hartshorne and Weiss to select only what could be fitted into a few volumes. The late Arthur W. Burks edited material for two more volum es that appeared in 1958.89 In the interim, the collection suffered more neglect and abuse. There were rumors in the early 1940s of a give-away of important papers, some referenced in the Collected Papers but no longer to be found in 87. An interview by Irwin C. Lieb, Charles Hartshornes Recollections of Editing the Peirce Papers, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 6 (1970): 149-159. 88. Houser, The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Peirce Papers, 2. 89. Two additional collected editions that have since appeared are: Charles Sanders Peirce, Contributions to The Nation, 3 vols., eds., Kenneth Laine Ketner and James Edward Cook (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1975-1979); and The New Elements of Mathematics by Charles S. Peirce, 4 volumes in 5, ed., Carolyn Eisele (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1976).

PAGE 35

26 the Harvard collection. A sizeable portion of the 1,250 volume library that was sold to Harvard with the papers, many of the tomes b earing Peirces marginalia, was shelved in the general circulation of th e Robbins and Widener Librarie s. The papers, contained in some sixty-one boxes, were moved to Widene r Library and subsequently transferred to Houghton Library in 1960 and underwent seve ral more sortings by cataloguers and researchers with no heed paid to earlier classifications. Only with commencement of work in 1976 on a definitive, critical, and chronological edition of the papers by the Peirce Edition Project, a group of Peirce scholars housed at Indiana University and working from photocopied and, later, digitalized microfilmed images of the Harv ard collection, was rene wed hope of a useful classification warranted. However, the effo rt has progressed slowly with only six volumes of a projected forty appearing so fa r. Working with over eighty thousand pages from the Harvard collection, onl y one fourth of which were dated by Peirce, and several other collections, including the nearly ten thousand pages in the National Archives,90 the task of compiling a comprehensive chronological edition is a monumental undertaking. Despite the obstacles to a clear understand ing of Peirce the id iosyncrasies of the man, the vagaries of his thought, and the disa rrangement of his manuscripts, there was something compelling and suggestive to his cont emporaries. Royce called him, our most brilliant and original American logician.91 As already noted, James acknowledged his debt to Peirce for the inspiration of pragmatism and dedicated his The Will to Believe: 90. Houser, The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Peirce Papers, 7. 91. Oppenheim, Josiah Royces Late Writings: A Collection of Unpublished and Scattered Works 2:3.

PAGE 36

27 f To My Old Friend, CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE, to whose philosophic comradeship in old time s and to whose writings in more recent years I owe more incitement and help than I can express or repay.92 In his second year at Hopkins, John De wey took two courses with the part-time lecturer Peirce which Dewey confessed made little sense to him at the time. Twenty years later Dewey began to see the value of Peirces wor k, but it was only after another twenty years, when Morris Cohen republis hed some of Peirces Papers, that Dewey learned what Peirce had tried to teach him.93 Though he was less effusive in his praise of Peirce than either James or Royce, Deweys later work in logic and his own brand o pragmatism bear the mark of Peirces influence and are pocked with references to his teachers work. While Dewey wrote relatively li ttle on Peirce, one of his essays, Peirces Theory of Linguistic Signs, Thought and Mean ing, is a succinct and powerfully written summary of the general theory of signs. A nother essay, Peirces Theory of Quality, delivered as a corrective to Thomas Goudges misconceptions of Peirces category of Firstness, is a probing exam ination of Peirces phenomenology.94 In his groundbreaking Survey of Symbolic Logic Royces student, Clarence Irving Lewis, wrote in 1918 that [t]he contributions of C.S. Peirce to symbolic logic are more numerous and varied than those of any other writer at least in the nineteenth century.95 In the twenty-eight page section on Peirce, Le wis drew attention to the 1883 colle ction of 92. William James, The Will to Believe, and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (New York: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1897). 93. Fisch, Peirces Place in Amer ican Thought, in Peirce, Semiotic and Pragmatism : Essays by Max H. Fisch, 310. 94. The former is from The Journal of Philosophy 43 (1946): 85-95; latter is from The Journal of Philosophy 32 (1935): 701-708. 95. Clarence Irving Lewis, Survey of Symbolic Logic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1918), 79.

PAGE 37

28 essays by some of Peirces Johns Hopkins students, Studies in Logic,96 that were inspired and edited by Peirce, though he fittingly gave editorial credit to the authors collectively. Lewis most Peircean work and his magnum opus Mind and the World Order,97 was somewhere between Peirces pragmatism and Royces absolute pragmatism.98 Closer to our time, the list of thos e who have acknowledged taking inspiration from Peirce includes Alfred North Whitehe ad, Frank Ramsey, Karl Popper, Noam Chomsky, Umberto Eco, Karl-Otto Apel, Jurgen Habermas, Helmut Pape, Hilary Putnam, Richard Bernstein, and to a lesser extent, W.V.O. Quine.99 Ramsey was so enamored of Peirces correspondence with Victoria Lady Welby on se miotics that in his review of the Tractatus [he] remarked that Wittgenstein would have profited from Peirces type-token distinction.100 In an intriguing essay, Charles S. Hardwick surmised that the origin of what some have inte rpreted as a pragmatic strain evident in Wittgensteins later work, speculating that in asmuch as Wittgenstein credited Ramsey with waking him from his dogmatic slumber, that their lengthy conversations might have covered notions inspired in Ramsey by his reading of Peirce.101 Hardwick concluded that What is needed is a caref ul study of themes common to Peirce and 96. Members of the Johns Hopkins University, Studies in Logic (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1883). 97. Clarence Irving Lewis, Mind and the World-Order (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1929). 98. Fisch, American Pragmatism Before and After 1898, in Peirce, Semiotic and Pragmatism 301. 99. Brent, Peirce: A Life, 6. 100. Charles S. Hardwick Peirces Influence on Some British Philosophers, Peirce Studies, no. 1, ed., Institute for Studies in Pragmatism (Lubbo ck, Texas: Texas Tech University Press, 1979), 27; Peirces correspondence with Welby can be found in Charles S. Hardwick, ed., Semiotic and Significs: The Correspondence Between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1977). 101. Hardwick, Peirce Studies, 25.

PAGE 38

29 Wittgenstein.102 Ironically, it is Rorty who provide d something of that study in observing that When Peirce says that vague ness is real and when Wittgenstein points to the difference between causal and logical determination, the only differences between what they are saying are verbal, that [t]he similarity of their insights about language reflects that fact that the sl ogans Dont look for the meaning, look for the use and The meaning of a concept is the sum of its possi ble effects upon conduct reciprocally support each other.103 At a 1976 conference on the philosophy of language, Chomsky was asked which philosopher he believed to be most kindred to his own ideas. He answ ered, In relation to the questions we have been discussing, the phi losopher to whom I feel closest and whom Im almost paraphrasing is Charles Sanders Peirce.104 For his part, Quine believed that Peirce scored a major point for naturalism in envisioning a behavioristic semantics. Naturalism in psychology and semantics is be haviorism; and Peirce declared for such a semantics when he declared that beliefs consist in dispositions to action.105 Of the many and widely va ried ideas pioneered by Peir ce, we need only highlight a few to gain an appreciation of the fruitful ness of his labors. In addition to being the progenitor of pragmatism, Peirce is credited with developing the logic of relatives. At about the same time as Frege, he obtained the insight of quantification, and as Putnam put 102. Ibid., 29. 103. Richard Rorty, Pragmatis m, Categories, and Language, The Philosophical Review 70 (April 1961):198. See e.g. Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue and Brown Books (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 60, and CP 6.481. 104. Brent, Peirce: A Life 6. 105. Quine, The Pragmatists Place in Empiricism, in Mulvaney and Zeltner, Pragmatism Its Sources and Prospects 35-6.

PAGE 39

30 f or hypothesis. it, effectively introduced quantif iers as we know them today.106 He worked out a single connective logic that an ticipated the Sheffer stroke by some thirty years. He developed a triadic or many-va lued logic well in advance of Jan Lukasiewicz and Emil Post.107 He is responsible for the Law that bears his name: {[(P Q) P] P} or P must be true if you can show that P implyi ng Q forces P to be true, a tautology that Peirce employed as a substitute for the Principle of the Excluded Middle.108 Peirce also developed a system of iconic first-order logi cal graphs, and was the progenitor of modern semiotics. He made a lasting mark in probability theory and developed a third order o reasoning that he alternately termed abduction, retroduction As a true polymath, Peirce made orig inal contributions to chemistry, geodesy, metrology (the science of measurement), literary criticism, sociology, lexicography, astronomy, and cartography in addition to philosophy, mathematics and logic. He invented the quincuncial map in 1876, an extr aordinarily accurate projection that was used extensively during the Second World War. He was, Ian Hacking notes, perhaps the only philosopher of modern times who was quite a good experimenter.109 He spent most of his professional life as a working scient ist, employed by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, where he pioneered new methods in pendulum-swinging and was the first to suggest the use of the light wave to more accurately measure the length of a meter. 106. Nathan Houser, Don D. Roberts, and James Van Evra, eds., Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, Introduction by Houser (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997), 3. 107. Fisch, Peirces Triadic Logic in Ketner and Kloesel, eds., Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch 171. 108. Henry Hi Peirces Influence on Logic in Poland, in Houser, Roberts, and Van Evra, eds., Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce 266-7. 109. Hacking, Representing and Intervening 60.

PAGE 40

31 As we will see, his laboratory work extended to the then new field of psychology and the measurement of human perceptions. Though he was responsible for ground-breaking work in many fields, his wi de-ranging interests often conf licted and caused distractions that kept him from completing much of what he started and thus, he is not widely known today outside of small circles within academ e. As a result, he [has] suffered from readers of narrow vision, so he is praised for having had this precise thought in logic, or that inscrutable idea about signs.110 However, as Hacking concludes one of the fairest, most admirable, and certainly most colorful assessments of Peirce: We should instead see him as a w ild man, one of the handful who understood the philosophical events of his century and set out to cast his stamp upon them. He did not succeed. He finished almost nothing, but he began almost everything.111 This is the portrait of Peirce that I hope has been the gui ding principle of this study. 110. Ibid., 61. 111. Ibid.

PAGE 41

32 Chapter Two The Modern English History of the Emotions The old sensationalists, Hartley, Brown, and the Mills, never wrung many admissions from the advocates of a-priority. --Peirce, Writings of Charles S. Peirce Hamiltons own lectures were th e first philosophic wr itings I ever forced myself to study, and after that I was immersed in Dugald Stewart and Thomas Brown. --James, Varieties of Religious Experience A. Introduction The development of psychology in the English-speaking world as mental science, apart from the concerns that it sh ared with philosophy and theology, began to take shape in the late eighteenth century. It is rooted in the emergence of new terminology, in particular, the term emotion to signify that which for generations had been referred to varyingly as passions, affec tions, sentiments, feelings, and sensibilities. By about 1850 the category of emotions ha d subsumed passions, affections, and sentiments in the vocabularies of the ma jority of the English-language psychological theorists. It had become th e most popular standard theore tical term for phenomena such as hope, fear, love, anger, jealousy and a wide variety of others.1 This was in large part due to the posthumously published four volume work entitled, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, by Thomas Brown, Doctor of Medicine and Professor of Epigraph. Peirce Edition Project, Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition 6 vols. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982 ) (hereinafter cited as W ). Epigraph. William James, Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). 1. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 98.

PAGE 42

33 Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh that appeared in 1820.2 Browns Lectures was the single most important work in introducing the term emotions as a major psychological category to the academic and literary worlds during the first half of the nineteenth century.3 This work ran to twenty ed itions by 1860 and as we will see, exerted widespread influence on most of the better known proponents of the emerging new psychology. A full western history of affective ps ychology might commence with a study of the emergence of such terms as the Greek path and the Latin passiones, affectiones or affectus.4 Or it might begin with a study of Platos Protagorus and the discussion of the proper relation between reason and the emotions. For the purposes of this dissertation, it is sufficient to chronicle developments in Anglo-American psychology from the late eighteenth century. B. Roots of the Emotions Thomas Dixon picks up the modern history of the emotions with what he sees as the crux of Christian affective psychology, psychological, moral, and theological distinctions that were made neither in the classical [Gre ek] discourse of the passions ( path ) nor in the subsequent discourse of the emotions.5 These distinctions were between appetites, lusts, desires, and passions that were insubordinate to the rational will, on the one hand, and virtuous and godly affections that issued in act s of the higher will, 2. Thomas Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind (Edinburgh: W. & C. Tait, 1820). 3. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions 109. 4. Ibid., 19. 5. Ibid., 61.

PAGE 43

34 on the other hand. This was the result of the Christian desire to say both against the Stoics that some human feeling or affection is proper and nece ssary to this life, but also that God, the angels, an d perfected humans are free from the turmoil and perturbations of sin and the passions.6 These distinctions, adapted from the Gr eeks by the Scholastics, were still very much in vogue during the Enlightenment. In 1755, Samuel Johnsons dictionary of the English language was first published. The entries for affection, appetite, emotion, feeling, passion, sensibility, and senti ment provide a rough and ready guide to usage in the middle of the eight eenth century. They reveal that the predominant terms for describing stat es such as love, fear, joy and sorrow were still passions and affections, each of which was given an extensive entry Passions, as we ll as being a very general term, referred to the more violent commotions of the mind Affections was defined (as well as also being a ve ry general term) as encompassing, amongst other things, goodwill, love, or kindness towards other people. Appetite was given the next longest entry of these affective terms, which defined it as a word for physic al appetites, sensual desires, and violent longings. Next came entries for feeling, sensibility, and sentiment. Feeling when used as an adjective, meant expressive of great sensibility; sensibility in turn was defined as quickness of sensation or quickness of percep tion. Sentiment had a very short entry only two meanings were su ggested: thought, notion, or opinion on the one hand; and sense or meaning on the other. Emotion too was given only a very brief definition: Disturbance of mind; vehemence of passion, pleasing or painful. The term emotion and its plural emotions, were not in common use at this time other than as words denoting any kind of agitation or disturbance (of the mind, of the body, of a mass of people, or even in the weather).7 Embedded in this long quotation is the message that emotion is a relative newcomer to the lexicon of affective psychology. Graduall y, but in a most interesting way, the new category of emotion displaced an older terminology. This displacement reflected a 6. Ibid., 61. 7. Ibid., 62-3.

PAGE 44

35 corresponding shift in mental ontology, a shift from mental powers or faculties of the soul to mental states or feelings. Dixons study of the invention of the e motions in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries traces a movement away from reference to the categories of the appetites, passions, sensibilities, affections and sentiments, all rooted in traditional Christian thought, and toward a mo re secular view of psychology as mental science entailed in the more general category of emotion. Nowhere is this development more clearly evident than in the writings of the so-called British moralists. This eclectic group of thinkers that included Joseph Butler, Francis Hutcheson, Thomas Reid, Lord Shaftesbury and Adam Smith, who were for the most part latitudinarian Anglicans, is compared with the Christia n evangelicals Jonathan Edwards and Isaac Watts. While the revivalists considered th e relationship between nature and grace, the natural and the supernatural, and compared th e affections and passions of the natural and the saved man, the moralists contemplated th e relationship between nature and art, the natural and the social, the individual and the state.8 The progressive outlook of the moralists favored the view of human nature as essentially virtuous and human beings as possessing a reliable moral sense or propensity for the good. By contrast, the evangelicals and, ironically enough, Hobbesians such as Bernard Mandeville, with whom the moralists were polemically engaged, viewed human nature as self-seeking and bru tish. A critical difference was that the classical Christian view of man in a state of nature was that he was selfish and sensual because prolapsarian, 8. Ibid., 70.

PAGE 45

36 while the Hobbesian view of human nature wa s that it was selfish and sensual because pre-social.9 By championing an innate moral se nse, the moralists are credited with causing the soteriological vi ew of classical Christian psychology to fade into the background and with it the focus on will as the means of turning away from sin and toward God. On the classical Christian mode l, passions and affections were movements of the soul specifically passions were moveme nts of the lower part of the will (the sense appetite) and affections were movements or acts of the higher or rational will (the intellectual appetite).10 Another factor leading to the inve ntion of the emotions was rise in popularity, particularly in France and England, of the metaphor of the machine to describe the functioning of the human animal. The introduc tion in Germany in the eighteenth century of a third faculty of the soul in addition to understanding and will th e faculty of feeling was part of a parallel trend away from classical Christian psychology towards a new psychology in which passions, affections, feelings or, ultimately, emotions were not movements of the will but constituted an i ndependent faculty with their own causal power. Psychological thinkers such as Chri stian Wolff, Moses Mendelssohn, and Johann Tetens were important contribu tors to a new tradition of mental philosophy in which a third faculty of feeling ( Gefhl or Empfindung ) was joined to the tr aditional two faculties of Christian psychology knowing and willing.11 Dixons claim is that it was endorsement by Kant in the Critique of the Power of Judgment of 1790 and 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid.

PAGE 46

37 Anthropologie in pragm atischer Hinsicht in 1798 and, to a lesser extent, by Schopenhauer in The World as Will and Representation in 1819 that lent authority to the tripartite view: The faculty of feeling ( Gefhl ) for Kant was composed of Affekte and Leidenschaft. These terms did not map straightforwardly on to corresponding English terms such as passions, affections, or emotions. This separation of th e third faculty from the existing faculties of intellect (or understanding) and will was one of the crucial factors in laying the groundwork for various theories of passions and emotions that saw them as both irrational and involuntary.12 While English language models did not explic itly copy the Kantian model, increasingly they adopted something similar and eventu ally the feelings entered into common parlance as a separate faculty of the mind. Another factor leading to the inven tion of the emotions was the widely adopted metaphor of the machine to describe the human animal. In an age of growing mechanization, the metaphor resonated with t hose seeking a more scientific explanation of human nature and behavior. Hobbes made an early use of it in the first paragraph of the Leviathan For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in principal part within; why may we not say, that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves but so many strings; and the joints but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the artificer?13 As a religious skeptic and materialist, Hobbes believed neith er in the reality of sin nor the moral agency of human beings. Human be ings, like machines, were designed, had no 12. Ibid., 71. 13. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan ed. Richard E. Flathman and David Johnston (New York and London: W.W. Norton, first published in 1650), quoted in Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 89.

PAGE 47

38 real agency and no free will.14 Descartes also made use of the trope as did Shaftesbury, Butler, Reid and de la Mettrie, who attempted to show that Descartes view of animals as mechanical automata was easily extended to the human animal without compromise: In the famous LHomme Machine of 1747, de la Mettrie simply set aside the Cartesian soul to reduce man to the same status as animals. The mechanical physiology of the autonomous Cartesian body did not need, he claimed, to be supplemented with the mysterious Cart esian soul, any more than Newtons mechanical universe had needed to be supplemented by a mysterious and unpredictable God. De la Mettrie did fo r Cartesian anthropology what Pierre Laplace would later do for Newtonian cosmology neither needed those theological hypotheses.15 So compelling was this metaphor of th e human machine, driven by passion and the appetites, that it went la rgely unchallenged. Even a writ er as orthodox as Butler did not take issue with the sugges tion of man as machine arguin g only that man was a virtue producing machine, not a selfish machine. The end result, however, was that the individual will came to be viewed as a slav e of the passions, an unreflective conjunction of conditioned responses to external forces. Highly reductionist versions of this analogy would appear in the influential works of Thomas Huxley and Herbert Spencer in the nineteenth century. Two other analogies were influential in leading the way to th e invention of the emotions, according to Dixon. One was the anal ogy between inner and outer sensations. Passions and affections (including the moral sense and moral sentiments) were described as a sort of inner sensation or perception, by analogy with the external senses of taste, touch, sight and so on. Reids opposition to the reduction of complex acts of the mind, of which sensation or feeling was only one element, to sensation or feeling alone, displayed awareness of the redu ctionist tendency of the analogy. Sensationalist and associationist th inkers such as Hartley, Condillac and 14. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 89. 15. Ibid., 89-90.

PAGE 48

39 James Mill would later replace the view that they just were modes or combinations of sensations Spencer and Bain also tended towards this latter view in their works on emotions.16 As we have stated, the case of Bain is of speci al interest in respect to the fact that Peirce was very familiar with Bains work and allowed that Bains definition of belief had been foundational to the development of pragmatism. The third analogy that was important to the evolution of the emotions as a category of affective psychology and the phi losophy of mind was that which held between sciences of mind and sciences of matter: The moral arithmetic and inward anatomy of the moralists were attempts to apply Baconian induc tivism to the mind by methodological analogies. It was again Reid, in his critique of Humes attempt to construct a causal and law-like scie nce of human nature, who showed most caution about pursuing the analogy between the necessary laws of Newtonian physics and the operations of an active human mind: There are many important branches of hu man knowledge, to which Sir Isaac Newtons rules of Philosophizing have no relation, and to which they can with no propriety be applied. Such are Morals, Jurisprudence, Natural Theology, and the abstract Sciences of Mathematics and Metaphysicks; because in none of thos e sciences do we investigate the physical laws of Nature. Reid went on to say that it was normally the belief or judgment that caused the feeling rather than the other way around.17 Thus it is that Reid can be vi ewed as anticipating some of th e themes of tw entieth century cognitivists, notably [Robert] Solomon, [W illiam] Lyons, [Irving] Thalberg, [Joel] Marks and [John] Searle, all of whom ascribe a critical role to cognitive beliefs and desires in the production (or constitution) of emotions.18 More closely tied to our 16. Ibid., 93-4. 17. Quotation is from Thomas Reid, Essays on the Active Powers of Man 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1788), 1: 472; quoted by Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 94. 18. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 96.

PAGE 49

40 interests, distinctly Reidian threads are disc ernable in the fabric of Peirces theory of emotion, which is distinctly cognitivistic. What emerged by the closing decade of the eighteenth century, however, was a view in which the passions and affections were conceived as a faculty in their own right (and ) that they (thus) came to be seen as alien powers rather than as moveme nts integral to the self.19 C. The Emergence of the Emotions The category emotion is, as we have noted, a relative lateco mer to the lexicon of affective psychology. The English word apparen tly is apparently derived from the Latin mov re, to move out, remove or take out ( out + mov re to move), or sometimes movement of the soul (emotus animae ), indicating the radiation outward of some of its movements.20 mov re was employed by both Augustine and Aquinas to indicate movement in relation to some object. It is tempting to see in such uses by Augustine and Aquinas an etymological precursor of the term emotions, which is clearly a cognate term.21 Yet the various connotations of the Eng lish word that began to appear only in the eighteenth century seem to have far less to do with movement toward or away from a given object than an inward bodily or mental movement. By the mid-eighteenth century, th e term was well enough known for Johnson to take notice and give it a brief entry in his dictionary. Interestingly, the modern term was in large measure a Scottish product. Some Scotti sh writers on aesthetics, especially Lord 19. Ibid., 97. 20. Robert K. Barnhart, ed., The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology (New York: Harper Collins, Publishers, 1995), 240. 21. Ibid., 40.

PAGE 50

41 Kames, in his Elements of Criticism (1752), and Archibald Alison, in his Essays on the Nature and Principles of Taste (1790), were early users of th e category of emotions as a general psychological term referring to vivi d feelings, perceptions, and sensations.22 It was, however, the proponents of the emergi ng school of associationism who were to adopt the term as a synonym for the passions, a ffections, and sentiments and adapt its use to the view that all mental life is the product of sensory and perceptual stimulation. Associationism was one of two main schools of mental philosophy in the eighteenth century, the other being, A priorism, which was heir to the older faculty psychology. Associationists drew th eir inspiration from Lockes Essay Concerning Human Understanding and his belief that the contents of the mind and all of its powers are derived from individual sense experience. Associationism assumes that mental life is derived from sensory and perceptual stimulation. In chil dhood, these stimuli establish the fundamental structures of mind, whic h is empty without them. In later life, these structures regulate the fl ow of sensory data and prevent the mind from becoming an inferno of chaotic and random stimuli. For associationists, the mind is thus self-organizing ar ound the initiatory clusters So how do the minds contents organize themselves in associationist theory? The simplest e xplanation was that the structures of the mind replicate the structures of the experienced environment The minds dominant ideas are therefore a self-electing refl ection of the way the world is.23 The associationists had, in addition to pure sensation, a second source of ideas in the minds capacity to reflect on its own activ ities. It was this capacity for reflection, however, that proved as sociationisms undoing. 22. Ibid. 101. 23. Rick Rylance, Victorian Psychology and British Culture 1850-1880 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 57

PAGE 51

42 In most accounts, the links between ideas occur in one of two ways: either by contiguity (that is, by direct adjacency in time or space) or by the perception of resemblance However, the perception of resemblance the association of similar ideas is a tricky issue. It is sometimes ascribed to the frequency with which ideas are associated in the environment, in which case, for strict theorists, the perception of resemblance is only a special case of heavily repeated contiguity. But if ideas are associated by means other th an contiguous occurrence, then the theory is in difficulties, because th is line of thought suggests that the mind might be able to recognize rese mblance by a faculty that is not itself a product of association. This is a classic difficulty in Lockes development of associationist doctrine in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and it dogged the theory for nearly two hundred years thereafter. If a relatively independent faculty to adjudicate comparisons and detect similarities is conceded Lockes general name for it is reflection the purist rigour of associationism falls, and important ground is given up to jeering faculty ps ychologists. If it is not conceded, however, a serious gap appears in the theory The mind was to be understood as an entity constituted within its own history and not under any terms of reference outside this process.24 So wedded to the Lockean point of view was associationism that it was often referred to as the School of Locke and its adherents as Lockes descendants.25 The earliest statement of the associationist psyc hology appears to have been David Hartleys 1749, Observations on Man.26 Those who found a muse in Hartley included Thomas Brown, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, Alex ander Bain, Herbert Spencer and George Henry Lewes. Hartley, in turn, had been st irred by Hume and the principle of the association of ideas in the Treatise on Human Nature (1739-40),27 the work in which the 24. Ibid., 58-9. 25. Ibid., 56. 26. David Hartley, Observations on Man, his Frame, his Duty and his Expectations, 2nd ed. (London: J. Johnson, 1791). 27. David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature 2nd edition, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge with text revised and variant readings by P. H. Nidditch (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).

PAGE 52

43 term emotions made its first sustained appearance in a manner proximate to modern usage.28 Even so, Hume did not appear certa in what he wanted the term to do. There are [in the Treatise ] many cases of apparent equivocation between passions and emotions, although passions was the central and most frequently used category. In most instances Hume seemed to intend emotions to be read as a rath er vague and general term to mean something like feelings or movement s or agitations of the mind. In this sense an emotion could be said to be something which attends a passion. In other places, however, Hume seemed to use emotions as a synonym or stylistic variant for passions , as well as for affections; he also used emotion to mean a movement of the bodily spirits, as well as an immediate feeling or sensation.29 A variant form of associationism was dubbed sensationalism, a generally pejorative term used to describe the reductioni sm that held that ideas were one of two classes of feeling, one being ideas the other being sensations from which all understanding of the world was directly and solely derived.30 The former is merely a copy of the latter in a manner similar to Hume s ideas being simply fainter copies of sense impressions. James Mill put it this way: We have two classe s of feelings; one, which exists when the object of sense is presen t; another, which exists after the object of sense has ceased to be present. The one class of feelings I call sensations ; the other class of feelings I call ideas .31 The difference between sensa tionalism and associationism aside from the often derogatory overtones of the former was that the former was more crudely reductionist, and expl ained complex phenomena as mere aggregates of basic bodily sensations, whereas the latter explai ned them as proprieties of complex learned 28. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 104. 29. Ibid., 105. 30. Rylance, Victorian Psychology 59. 31. James Mill, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind 2 vols. (London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1829; repr., Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press, 2001), 1:41.

PAGE 53

44 associations, and gave a greater role, as Locke had, to the minds power of reflection.32 The sensationalists thus dism issed the distinction of body and mind and this opened the way to a physiologically based study of mi nd by placing cognition, perception, sensation, the functioning of the organs of sense, a nd general physiology all in one line of development.33 The Associationists of the early nineteenth century were opposed by the A priorists, who adhered to prin ciples of faculty psychology and its discourse of the soul. Residing in its core values were two major premises. [F]irst, that human beings occupy a special place at the pinnacle of Creation, and, secondly, that, by virtue of this, humans, for the most part, are exempt from the messy determinations of nature. Humans are not only higher in the scheme of th ings, they are different [Faculty psychology] discriminated higher minds from lower (for instance, men from women and civilized minds from primitive) and saw itself as defending the special dignity of human nature As a result, psychologically, human beings were thought to possess relatively autonomous, distinctly human, mental faculties.34 These were arranged in a variety of taxonom ies that distinguished between higher faculties (reason, faith, love, will) and low er faculties (sensation, feeling, appetite, desire).35 The A priorists believed that they had discovered a formidable reaffirmation of their essential convictions in an appropria tion of Kants criti cal philosophy. Faculty psychologists obstructed new enquiries as often as possible (especially in psychophysiology), and promoted the view that th e development of any kind of substantive 32. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 100. 33. Rylance, Victorian Psychology 60. 34. Ibid., 26-27. 35. Ibid., 27.

PAGE 54

45 psychological theory on empirical lines was misplaced effort.36 Revolted by the materialistic implications of the associationists growi ng infatuation with physiology, they were heartened by what they gleaned fr om the transcendental psychology of Kant. Faculty psychologists, building on the discour se of the soul, take from Kant two supportive affirmations: first, that the mind possesses innate ideas (time, space, and so on); and, secondly, that as an intellectual disc ipline the scope open to psychology is very limited, and its methods remain restricted to the increasingly oldfashioned looking ones of introspection.37 As to the second of these two affirm ations, faculty psychologists were heartened by Kants claim that empirical psychology s hould be wholly banished from metaphysics because it cannot add to a priori knowledge, that it is not yet refined enough to count as a legitimate field of study and is therefore, mere ly a stranger whom one puts up with for a while and grants residence for some time, until he can move into his own lodging in a comprehensive anthropology (the pend ant to empirical natural science).38 Having asserted that in any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein, Kant weighs empirical psychology in this balance and 36. Ibid., 47. 37. Ibid., 48. 38. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason Unified Ed., trans. Werner S. Pluhar, intro. Patricia Kitcher (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1996), A:849 / B:877. I have adopted the common practice of reference to the A (1781) and B (1787) editions of Kants Critique of Pure Reason, followed by the page number from the standard edition of Kants works, Kants gesammelte Schriften, issued by the Kniglich Preuische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Company and Predecessors, 1902).

PAGE 55

46 finds it wanting as a science because mathema tics is not applicable to the phenomena of inner sense and their laws 39 Having savaged the pretensions of psychology posing as natural science, Rylance explains that Kant set out to narrow its proper scope. Psychologys strength, according to Kant, is that it can dismantle speculative propositions; its lim itation is that it cannot provide substantive knowledge, neither enlightenment nor determinant judgment, as Kant puts it. At best, Ka nt states, substantive or empirical psychology consists of routine in trospective observation, a mere anthropology of the internal sense. Its authentic task is self-reflection upon the processes of intellection themselves, in particular the fundamental category structures inherent in thought: the universal laws apart from which nature in general (as an object of sense) cannot be thought. These are the a priori laws that understanding prescribes for nature. Examples would be our sense of Time, Space, and Extension, or Unity, Difference, and Limitation, a sense of which Kant believed, was innately embedded in human minds.40 The faculty psychologists, as we have seen, delighted in the view of Kant that underscored the operations of the mind and the limitations of psychology for getting behind the three faculties of cognition, volition, and judgment by any other means than introspection. [Psychology] certa inly cannot enquire into thei r origin (esp ecially their physiological origin), nor analyze very deeply their mode of operation.41 This portrayal of Kant as a highly sophistic ated faculty psychologist was quite popular with the 39. Immanuel Kant, Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science in The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Theoretical Philosophy after 1781, eds. Henry Allison and Peter Heath, trans. Gary Hatfield, Michael Friedman, Henry Allison an d Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 185-6; standard Ge rman edition of Kants works, Kants Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences (Berlin: Georg Reimer, la ter Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1900), indicated by means of marginal numbers, 4:470-471. 40. Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 48. Quotes of Kant are from Critique of Judgement, trans. James C. Meredith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), Part II: Critique of Teleological Judgement, 131-132. 41. Rylance, Victorian Psychology 49.

PAGE 56

47 philosophers of the Scottish common-sense school, who sought to wed Kant and Reid. There are, as Rylance notes, contemporary proponents of similar positions such as Wayne Waxman, Patricia Kitcher, and Karl Ameriks.42 There was, however, another interpretation of Kant that placed emphasis not on faculties of the mind but instead viewed the critical philosophy as essentially skeptical. This view was espoused in the nineteenth century by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), who saw Kant not so clearly akin to Reid as to Hume. In short, nothing can be proved or disproved, respecting either the distinct existence, the substance, or the durability of the soul. So far, Kant is at one with Hume. But Kant adds, as you cannot disprove the immortality of the soul, and as the be lief herein is very useful for moral purposes, you may assume it. To which, had Hume lived half a century later, he would probably have replie d, that, if morality has no better foundation than an assumption, it is not likely to bear much strain; and, if it have a better foundation, the assumption rather weakens than strengthens it.43 Those who followed this line of interpretation included positivists such as William Kingdom Clifford (1845-1879) and John Tynda ll (1820-1893), who found in Kant what they reckoned as the scientific grounds fo r skepticism that thus issued a liberating warrant for scientific inquiry as produci ng findings that were permanently open to revision.44 In his own work, Kant conceals th e epistemological abyss his critical reasoning might open by insisting that innate categories of thought ha ppily agree with the order of nature. The normal mind does not freewheel towards mysticism or madness 42. Ibid., note 29 on Wayne Waxman, Patricia Kitcher, and Karl Ameriks. 43. Thomas Huxley, Hume 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd. 1901), 210; quoted from Huxley, Hume (1879), 181, by Rylance, Victorian Psychology 50. 44. Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 50.

PAGE 57

48 because the fundamental categories are coincident with sensory intuition.45 Among those who championed this notion was Benj amin Peirce (1809-1880), the father of Charles Sanders Peirce, and once considered th is countrys leading mathematician. In his final published work, Ideality in the Physical Sciences Benjamin Peirce articulated the view Charles Peirce affirmed as ideal-realis m and which he summarized as consisting in the opinion that nature and the mind have such a community as to impart to our guesses a tendency toward the truth, while at the same they require the confirmation of empirical evidence.46 The minds innate affinity with the order of nature, or il lume naturale a phrase borrowed from but seldom used by Galileo47 would later be developed, as we will see, in Charles Peirces views on instinct and probability. D. Thomas Brown and the Development of the Emotions Thomas Brown (1778-1820) is credited by Dixon with playing a key role in developing the psychological cat egory of emotions to identify love, hate, anger, joy, sadness, jealousy, and so forth.48 Within one generation th is all-purpose psychological category supplanted the older language of the passions, affections, and sentiments. 45. Ibid. 46. Joseph Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 205. 47. CP 6.10, 6.567. See Carolyn Eisele, The Influence of Galileo on Peirce, in Studies in the Scientific and Mathematical Philosophy of Charles S. Peirce: Essays by Carolyn Eisele, ed. Richard M. Martin (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979), 169-176 Jaime Nubiola has critically examined Peirces adoption of this Galilean term in his essay Il Lume Naturale: Abduction and God, in Semiotiche I/2 (2004): 91-102; also see www.unav.es/users/LumeNaturale.htm l (accessed August 2008). 48. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 109.

PAGE 58

49 Browns four volume Lectures on the Philos ophy of the Human Mind appeared in 1820.49 By 1850 the emotions were the standard currency of affective language. Placing Brown in the landscape of nineteenth century phi losophy of mind is difficult. The psychology of Brown may be su mmarily described as a combination of the Scottish philosophy of Reid and Stewart, and the analyses by Condillac, Destutte de Tracy, and the higher philosophers of the sens ational school of Fran ce, together with view of the association of ideas de rived from a prevailing British school.50 Brown, however, was clearly no sensa tionalist. (He) complained that materialism eliminates heroic virtue, leaving but a ce rtain aggregation of particles, which must rot in the grave, with the other part s of the withered and ulcerated body.51 What his position seems to have combined was essential features of both Reids common sense and Humes skepticism. Evidence that Brow n believed it quite possi ble to coherently combine the two is indicated in the gloss of his Lectures. The doctrine of both is composed only of two propositions; one is that, That no argument can be offered to shew by mere reasoning the existence of external causes of our feelings, --The other, that it is absolutely impossible for us, in the va rious states of mind which we term Perception, not to believe in external causes of our feelings. The whole seeming difference is merely this, -that each philosopher, though affirming both propositions, dwells a long time on one of them, and a short time on the other; and that th e particular proposition on which they dwell the longer, is not, in both cases, the same.52 49. Thomas Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind 4 vols. (Edinburgh: W.C. Tait; London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1820); all references will be to the two volume edition of 1846 (Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Smith). 50. James McCosh, Scottish Philosophy from Hutcheson to Hamilton (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1875), 325. 51. Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 46. 52. Thomas Brown, Sketch of a System of the Philosophy of the Human Mind (Edinburgh, Bell & Bradfute, 1820), in Significant Contributions to the History of Psychology, 1750-1920 Series A, Orientations, vol. 1: The Logic of Condillac & Sketch of a System of the Philosophy of the Human Mind ed. Daniel N. Robinson (Washington DC: University Publications of America, 1977). In the Lectures he had

PAGE 59

50 Brown, however, had his share of cr itics and the consensus among them seems to indicate that they sensed in his writings a sensationalism of the Condillacian stripe. Three contemporary historians of philosophy, Robert Blakey, James McCosh, and J.D. Morrell, each accused Brown of harboring ideas th at were congruent to sensationalism.53 Brown defended himself by rejecting Condillacs reduc tionism as vigorously as he did Reids unbridled proliferation of faculties. The phenomena of mind are in the general technical language of the science [of the mind], referred by us to many powers which, I cannot but think, are not so different as to furnish ground of ultimate distinction, but are truly varieties of a few more simple powers or susceptibilities. While I am far from conceiving, therefore, with Condillac and his followers that all our states of mi nd are mere sensations modified or transformed, since this belief appears to me to be a mere assumption without even the slightest evidence in our consciousness, I am equally unwilling to admit the variety of powers, of which Dr. Reid speaks.54 On one hand, Brown sided with Reid a nd Stewart in the belief that there are in the mind, intuitive first principles, such as the uni formity of nature, the identity of self, and the moral sense. On the other hand, he took i ssue with their unwarranted multiplication of faculties.55 Analysis must precede intuition, and on e may appeal to the latter only when compared the two positions thusly: The sceptic, and the orthodox philosopher of Dr. Reids school, thus come precisely to the same conclusion. The creed of eac h, on this point, is composed of two propositions, and the same two propositions; the first which is, that the existence of a system of things, such as we understand when we speak of an external world, ca nnot be proved by argument; and the second, that the belief of it is of a force, which is paramount to that of argument and absolutely i rresistible. The difference, and the only difference, is that, in asserting the same two propositions, the sceptic pronounces the first in a loud tone of voice, and the second in a whisper, while his supposed antagonist passes rapidly over the first, and dwells on the second, with a tone of confidence. The negation in the one case, and the affirmation in the other case are, however, precisely the same in both. Thomas Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind 2 vols. (Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Smith, 1846), Lecture 28, 1:279. 53. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 115, note 74. 54. Brown, Lecture 33, On Dr. Reids Classification of the Mental Phenomena, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind 1:336 55. See article by Robert H. Wozniak, Thomas Brown, Dictionary of Nineteenth Century Philosophers eds. W.J. Mander and Alan P.F. Sell (Bri stol, England: Thoemmes Press, 2002), 154-57.

PAGE 60

51 all efforts of the former have failed and anal ysis, first and foremost, is the business of classification. No science of the mind, no analysis, indeed, no taxonomy is possible without accounting for similitude in observed phenomena. But still, when we arrange these different phenomena in certain classes, it is an error in classification to give a new name to varieties that can be referred to other parts of the divisi on already made; and it is on this account that I object to the unnecessary amplification of our intellectual systems, in arranging the phenomen a of mind under so many powers as those of which we are accustomed to speak.56 What Brown brought to the discourse on mental science was a view that greatly reduced the number of active faculties and pow ers of the mind and held that there were generally only sequences of pa ssive mental phenomena, i.e. me ntal states or affections.57 These states of the mind were divided between external and internal affections. The external affections included all sensations including smell, taste, hearing, touch, vision, and muscular sense. The internal affections of the mind were, in turn, subdivided between intellectual states or thoughts, on the one hand, and emotions on the other hand.58 The latter of these classes comprehends all, or n early all, the mental states, which have been classed by others, under the head of active powers.59 Of the emotions we will say more momentarily. Browns portrait of the mind is heav ily laced with analogies from the natural sciences, especially chemistry. In his Lectures he wrote of the Cla ssification of the Phenomena of the Mind: 56 Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind (1846), Lecture 33, 1:336. 57. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 120-1. 58. Ibid., 123. 59. Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind (1846) Lecture 16, 1:164.

PAGE 61

52 The science of mind, as it is a science of analysis, I have more than once compared to chemistry, and pointed out to you and illustrated its various circumstances of resemblance. In this, too, we may hope the analogy will hold, that, as the innumerable aggr egates, in the one science, have been reduced and simplified, and the innumerable complex feelings in the other will admit of a corres ponding reduction and simplification.60 Directed at more than merely the end of simplification, Brown employed the analogy in the hope of developing mental science along the same lines as natural science, and with an eye to more than mere resemblance. Brown borrowed the methods and language of chemistry as a means of lending status and aut hority to his observations. It was a tactic effectively adopted in turn by George Pa yne, James and John St uart Mill, George Ramsay, Thomas Laycock, and G.H. Lewes.61 At the same time, Browns adoption of analogies from chemistry and physics was a retreat from realism. Sanctioning an analysis of cause and effect as mere uniformity, Browns view appears to have been more au stere than Humes. When applied to mental phenomena, the result was the effective denial of a priori faculties or powers of the mind. Brown wrote: The view of the mental phenomena which I have taken a view which it appears to me of the utmost impor tance for simplicity and accuracy of investigation to have constantly befo re us while we are endeavoring to philosophize on them, is that whic h considers all our feelings of whatever order, Sensations, Thoughts, Emotions, simply as states of the mind, that bear to each other, or to corresponding affections of our bodily frame, certain relations, either of reciprocal antecedence and consequence, by which we distinguish them as Causes and Effects, or of virtual comprehensiveness, by which it is impossible for us not to regard some of them as complex and involving, virtually at least, certain simpler feelings as their elements. Fr om the beginning of life to its close the mind has existed, and is known to us only as thus existing, in various states of changeful feeling; the feel ing at each moment being its state at 60. Ibid., 1:157. 61. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 119-20.

PAGE 62

53 each moment, that continued till the new state of some other feeling was more or less rapidly induced. Th e whole series of these feelings, therefore, has been the whole series of its states: and it is in our power to philosophize on these changes of ment al state, as we philosophize on any of the changeful phenomena of the material world which they indirectly indicate to us.62 Having already declared that ther e is nothing general but the mere names, or other symbols which we employ,63 and thus, that there are no real faculties or powers of the mind, only mental states, it is clear from this passage that Browns analogy between mental chemistry and physical chemistry could hold just so far. Dixon explains its limitations and liabilities. Brown termed his mental philosophy variously physiology of the mind, mental chemistry, mental sc ience, intellectual physics, and even the physical investigati on of the mind. However, Browns mental science, like that of moderate s such as Reid and Stewart as well as that of the Associationists Hu me, Hartley and James Mill, was a purely mentalistic and introspective discipline. It was a science, like chemistry or physiology, in that it analyzed the whole into parts, classified those parts and describe d the dynamics of their interaction. But it was not a physical science it had nothing to say about chemistry or physiology tout court it simply analysed and classified mental phenomena qua mental phenomena.64 So long as he clung to substance dual ism and a methodology that was largely introspective in nature, Brown struggled to make mental chemistry do what he needed it to accomplish. Apart from the application of a quasi-empirical methodology to the philosophy of mind, the real significance of Browns work is that it introduced a number of new psychological categories and terms. As we have noted, Brown reduced mental 62. Brown, Sketch of a System of the Philosophy of the Human Mind x-xii. 63. Ibid., 266. 64. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 118.

PAGE 63

54 phenomena to what he alternately termed ment al states, feelings or affections of the mind. These mental phenomena, in turn, were classified as according to whether the immediate antecedent or cause was material or mental.65 The causes of external affections of the mind or sensations were material objects whereas the causes of internal affections of the mind, whethe r intellectual states or emotions, were mental feelings.66 As we have seen, one of Browns innovations wa s the division of internal affections into intellectual states of mind and emotions. It was the first attempt in the English language to codify the term emotions as a replacement for what the faculty psychologists had termed the active powers of the human mind and it was the first attempt to create of the emotions a psychological category that was mo re than a mere synonym for the feelings. Brown himself gave three main reasons for his change of terminology from active powers to emotions: first, that he found the term active powers awkward and ambiguous; secondly, that intellec tual states were the really active states of mind; and thirdly that he wished to include in his ca tegory of emotions many states that were not active such as grief or astonishment and some also that had traditionally but wrongly been considered intellectual powers, such as the feelings of beauty and sublimity.67 The result, however, was far less than the achievement of clarity. For one thing, the attempt to include many dissimilar mental states under th e emotions risked e quivocation. This is indicated in Browns failure to provide a clear definition for the term. He admitted, that, The exact meaning of the term emotion is difficult to state in any form of words.68 65. Ibid. 124. 66. Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind Lecture 16, 1:156-165. 67. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 124. 68. Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind Lecture 16, 1:165.

PAGE 64

55 He appealed to general understanding and enumeration. Eve ry person understands what is meant by an emotion, at least as well as he understands what is meant by any intellectual power; or if he does not, it can be explaine d to him only, by stating the number of feelings to which we give the name, or the circumstances which induce the feelings to which we give the name, or the circumstances which induce them.69 Browns lack of an adequate prcising defi nition for the emotions had a residual effect on the development of ninet eenth century psychology. It was certainly true that the categor y of emotions could be filled out ostensively by listing love, hate, joy, so rrow, fear, anger, surprise and so on (although not without controversy). The problem with such a practice was that in the absence of a definition of emotion it was not at all clear what was being claimed about a ce rtain mental state when it was included in the category of emo tions. The problem of the nonexplanatory nature of the label emo tions has been a perennial problem ever since Brown Later writers al so echoed Browns statements that emotions could not be given a precis e definition but were distinguished by a peculiar vividness of feeling, and that they were not to be confused with sensations, which were feelings with external bodily causes rather than internal mental ones It is no surprise that in 1884 William James was still asking the question What is an emotion? (and failing to find an answer that persuaded most of his peers).70 As we have noted, within two decades of Browns untimely death in 1820 the term emotions replaced the language of the p assions, sentiments and affections. As Brown himself prophetically observed, this ch ange was more than merely verbal in nature. A difference of words is, in this case, more than a mere verbal difference. Though it be not the expression of a differen ce of doctrine, it very speedily becomes so.71 Browns bequest to the next generation of philosophers of mind was more than a 69. Ibid. 70. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 126-7. 71. Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind Lecture 16, 1:162.

PAGE 65

56 glossary of new terms for old categories. Though Brown contended that much of his thinking was merely the reclassification of tim e honored truths, he consistently disputed the division of mental phenomena into those which belonged to the understanding and those belonging to the will a division which is very an cient, but though sanctioned by the approbation of many ages, very illogical.72 He held that there were many emotions that did not fit into either division. To ta ke, on a few instances out of many, to what class are we to reduce grief, joy, admira tion, astonishment, which perhaps are not phenomena of the mere understanding, and wh ich, though they may lead indirectly to desires or volitions, have nothing, in themselves, that is voluntary, or that can be considered as in any peculiar degree connected with the will ?73 Thus detached from the will, the emotions were rendered mere feelings passive states akin to Humes secondary im pressions and Descartes perceptions to be contrasted with activ e intellectual judgments.74 The implications for morality, no less than psychology, were clear: We do what we do because of whichever appetite, passion, or emotion prevails (which might or might not be a benevolent or moral emotion) not because we judge it to be right.75 Brown summed up the new teaching. In the picture which I have now given of our emotions, however, I have presented them to you in their faires t aspects; there are aspects, which they assume, as terrible as these are attractive ; but even, terrible as they are, they are not the le ss interesting objects of our contemplation. They are the enemies with which our moral combat, in the warfare of life, is to be carried on; and if there be enemies that are to assail us, it is good for us to know all the arms and all the arts with which we are to be assailed; as it is good for us to know all the mi sery which would await our defeat, 72. Ibid., 1:158. 73. Ibid., 1:158-9 74. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 125. 75. Ibid.

PAGE 66

57 as much as all the happiness which would crown our success, that our conflict may be the stronger, and our victory, therefore, the more sure.76 Clearly, the new teaching had a foot firmly plan ted in the past, owing what it did to both Hobbes and Hume. Browns category of emotions was, by definition, a category of passive (rather than act ive), non-intellectual feelings or st ates (rather than actions of a power or faculty).77 The debate that had been joined by Plato with Pr otagorus over the relation of reason and the emotions had in Brown come full circle: What is your attitude toward knowledge? Most people think, in general terms, that it is nothing st rong, no leading or ruling element They hold that it is not the know ledge that a man possesses which governs him, but something else now passion, now pleasure, now pain, sometimes love, and frequently fear. They just think of knowledge as a slave, pushed around by all the other affections.78 Notwithstanding the plethora of texts one might cite to demonstrate Browns indebtedness to Reid and Stewart, his psychology of the emotions seems, in the end, to tilt slightly more toward sensationalism, though, again, Browns emotions were internal mental states rather than external sensati ons. John Stuart Mill wrote, The doctrine and spirit of Browns philosophy are entirely Positivist, and no better introduction to Positivism than the early parts of his Lectures has yet been produced.79 As we noted at the outset, finding Browns proper place in the landscape of ni neteenth century philosophy of mind is difficult. Some of the trouble results from Browns rhetoric and his 76. Brown, Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, Lecture 52, 1:530. 77. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 124. 78. Plato, Protagorus, trans. W.K.G. Gutherie, in Plato: The Collected Dialogues, eds. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (New York: Pantheon Books, 1966), 352 A-C. 79. John Stuart Mill, Auguste Comte and Positivism, in Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 2006), vol. 10, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill 267 (repr. from the original edition, ed. J.M. Robson, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969).

PAGE 67

58 lack of a proficient knowledge of the history of philosophy. [Dugald] Stewarts verdict on his successor [at Edinburgh] is that Brown wa s remarkably deficient in that capacity of patient thinking to which Newton had the modesty to ascribe all the merit of his greatest discoveries.80 William Hamiltons assessment was more brutal yet. The Lectures, he said, are riddled with radical inconsistencies, unacknowledged appropriations, endless mistakes in the history of philosophy and frequent misrepresentations of other philosophers.81 Questions of internal consistency as ide, what is of far greater significance is Browns influence on the subsequent generation of philosophers of mind. His introspective mental sc ience methodology and his new classification of mental states we re both widely adopted. Brown had divided mental-scientific methodology into two ta sks: first, analyzing mental states into their compone nts (mental chemistry) and, secondly, discovering the laws of su ccession of mental states (mental physics). These were what Brown called his laws of succession [or Association]. The division of me ntal phenomena into Sensations, Thoughts and Emotions was anot her characteristic feature of Browns system that was adopted by several later psychologists.82 Brown cast a long shadow on the work of Jame s and John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, and, especially, Alexander Bain, each of whom adopted some or all of these features of Browns system. Later writers also echoed Br owns statements that emotions could not be given a precise definition but were dist inguished by a peculiar vividness of feeling, 80. Wozniak, Brown, Thomas, Dictionary of Nineteenth Century Philosophers 2 vols,, ed. W. J. Mander and Alan P.F. Sell (Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press, 2002), 1:156; quote is from Dugald Stewart, Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1792-1827), 3:502, note C. 81. Ibid.; quote is from William Hamilton, Discussions on Philosophy and Literature Education and University Reform (New York: Harper and Sons, 1856). 82. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 125; see James Mill, Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, 2 vols. (London: Baldwin and Cradock,1829; Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press, 2001); and John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive (London: John W. Parker,1843), 2:502-5.

PAGE 68

59 and that they were not to be confused with sensations.83 In addition to Mills, Spencer and Bain, those who acknowledged a debt to Brown included his biographer, Thomas Welsh; Thomas Chalmers, who authored of one of the Bridgewater Treatises, and wrote a Preface to an 1846 edition of the Lectures ; James McCosh, historian of Scottish philosophy and later president of Princeton Un iversity; Charles Bell, George Ramsay, William Lyall, and G.H. Lewes, all important figures in the development of nineteenth century psychology.84 What is of special interest he re is the appropriation of Browns ideas by the physicalist theorist s of emotion during the second half of the century. E. Alexander Bain and the New Psychology The lineage of thought from Brown to Bain meanders through the work of Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), who took a hard er line than Brown in defining the emotions as mental states that are, pa ssive, non-cognitive, and altogether unmodified by the will.85 The influence of Chalmers work wa s immense and codified much of what else Brown had originated. The huge popularity of Thomas Browns Lectures and the (unacknowledged) adoption of his views on emotions by Thomas Chalmers must together take a large measure of the credit for [the] terminological revolution [from the vocabulary of passions, affections, and sentiments to talk of emotions].86 Alexander Bain (1818-1903) is the next leading figure in the modern history of the emotions to be considered. The treatises of Bain and Herbert Spencer in psychology were considered authoritative in the English speaking world of the second half of the 83. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 126. 84. Ibid., 127. 85. Ibid., 131. 86. Ibid., 133.

PAGE 69

60 c nineteenth century.87 Bains work was momentous for two reasons. First, there was his intention toward synthesis. He entered the psychological debates of the 1850s and 1860s as the voice of a modernized associationi sm alert to the possibilities of the new physiology, and with a determined instinct to marry the two while making the latter subordinate to the former.88 Secondly, his work had a profound effect on the epochforging work of Charles Darwin and William James. Moreover, Peirce was to acknowledge that Bains theory of belief played a defining role in the development of pragmatism through the influence of Nicholas St. John Green, an original member of the Metaphysical Club. Bain, the autodidactic so n of a weaver, founded the journal Mind in 1876, subtitled, interestingly enough: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy. The conjunction expresses both, an identity and a difference, a necessary relationship and a desired independence, as the science and the philosophy pulled in contrary directions, as they did in various wa ys throughout the period.89 Mind was, nevertheless, established as the first exclusively, speci alist psychological j ournal, touting psychologys scientifi credentials, though it continued to take notice of related trends in philosophy on both sides of the Atlantic.90 The profound effect of Bains theory of belief on the Cambridge circle of the early 1870s has already been mentioned. The attorney, Nicholas St. John Green, was credited by Peirce, in a 1907 letter to the Editor of The Nation with introducing Bains 87. Max Fisch, Alexander Bain and the Genealogy of Pragmatism, in Fisch, Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism 82. 88. Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 151. 89. Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 16. 90. Ibid., 16, 72.

PAGE 70

61 work to the Metaphysical Club around 1873, work which served as a catalyst for Peirces establishment of pragmatism in the Illustrations of the Logic of Science series that appeared in Popular Science Monthly a few years later. Greens son, Frederick who edited his legal briefs for private publication, was in possession of his fathers library, which contained copies of Bains two major works in psychology: The Senses and the Intellect (1855) and The Emotions and the Will (1859) as well as a copy of the 1869 edition of James Mills Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind bearing marginalia in Greens hand, an edition edite d, in part, and heavily annotated by Bain.91 These volumes indicate that Green was quite familiar with Bains work and serve to corroborate Peirces three decade old memories. Bain was the protg of John Stuart Mill. They met in 1841 and formed an immediate bond. Mill introduced Bain to Comtes Cours de Philosophie Positive in 1842.92 Bain was the only person acknowledged by Mill to have contributed to the text of the two volume landmark, A System of Logic, which appeared in 1843.93 Bain reviewed the System of Logic in a most sympathetic manner the following May, in the Westminster Review.94 Mill returned the favor by reviewing The Senses and the Intellect for the October 1859 issue of The Edinburgh Review, approving in the strongest terms, its 91. Fisch Alexander Bain and the Genealogy of Pragmatism in Fisch, Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism 86-87; see also Nicolas St. John Green, Essays on Tort and Crime, ed. Frederick Green (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company), 1933. 92. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 137. 93. John Stuart Mill, System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive (London: John W. Parker, 1843); John Stuart Mill, Autobiography (London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1873), 147n. 94. Wozniak, Bain, Alexander, The Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century British Philosophers, 1:47.

PAGE 71

62 author and, fresh from the press, The Emotions and the Will .95 Mills praise was not the empty accolade heaped on one friend by another or in reciprocity for favorable print. Robert Wozniak places the two works by Bain in an historical perspective. The publication of Bains The Senses and the Intellect in 1855 and The Emotions and the Will in 1859 is widely considered to make the advent of modern psychology. Through four heavily revised editions, these texts served for more than thirty years as the leading English-language compendium of the discipline. Unti l superseded at the end of the nineteenth century by William Jamess Principles of Psychology they were widely read by students and he avily cited by psychologists. Much that is taken for granted in modern psychology had its point of origin in these two great treatises.96 The names of the two works indi cate something of the purpose behind Bains project. The relational aspect of Bains work is clear from the simp le titles of his books: both The Senses and the Intellect and The Emotions and the Will relate one of the higher faculties intellect and will to what would at the time have been regarded as subaltern mental phenomena, sensations, and emotions.97 In the earlier work, Bain argues that classical taxonomies that placed sense in a s ubordinate role to the h igher faculty of the intellect have produced ba d habits of misperception.98 Whereas, Reid, Stewart, Brown, and James Mill had considered appetite and instinct among the phenomena of sensation, Bain wanted us to see them as spontaneous properties of the mind. [W]here James Mills orthodox Utilitari an associationism had portrayed the mind as fundamentally passive, Ba in insists that it is capable of initiatory action in its dealings wi th the world. Meanwhile, at the other pole of the argument, he mainta ined against the orthodox faculty 95. J.S. Mill, Bains Psychology in J.S. Mill, Dissertations and Discussions: Political, Philosophical and Historical 3 vols.; reprinted chiefly from the Edinburgh and Westminster Reviews (London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1867), 3:97-152; unabridged facsimile Elibron Classics Replica Edition series (Adamant Media Corporation, 2005). 96. Wozniak, Bain, Alexander, in Dictionary of Nineteenth Century British Philosophers 1:48. 97. Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 170. 98. Ibid.

PAGE 72

63 psychologists that mind and body form a continuum. Sensation, appetite, and instinct were no longer to be classed apart, beyond the pale of the special human capacities. This quiet, but far-reaching disruption of the standard classificatory systems is very deliberate and sustained in Bain.99 The deliberation stemmed from a single-minded purpose that Bain had embarked upon as early as 1851 and which he set had fort h in the Preface to th e first edition of The Senses and the Intellect Bain declared, Conceiving that the time has now come when many of the striking discoveries of Physiol ogists relative to the nervous system should find a recognized place in the Science of Mind, I have devoted a separate chapter to the Physiology of the Brain and Nerves.100 It was precisely upon this innovation that J.S. Mill focused his tribute. Mr. Bain possesses, indeed, a union of qualifications peculiarly fitting him for what, in the language of Dr. Brown, may be called the physical investigations of mind. With analytic powers comparable to those of his most distinguished predecessors, he combines a range of appropriate knowledge still wider than theirs; having made a more accurate study than perhaps any previous psychologist, of the whole round of physical sciences, on which the mental depend both for their methods, and for the necessary material substratum of their theories This is especially true of the science most nearly allie d, both in subject and method, with psychological investigations, the scie nce of Physiology: which Hartley, Brown, and [James] Mill had unquestionably studied, and knew perhaps as well as it was known by anyone at th e time when they studied it, but in a superficial manner compared with Mr. Bain; the science in the meanwhile assumed almost a new aspect, from the important discoveries which had been made in all its branch es, and especially in the functions of the nervous system, since even the latest of those authors wrote.101 99. Ibid., 171. 100. Alexander Bain, The Senses and the Intellect, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1868), iii; reference is to unabridged facsimile of this edition by Elibron Classics series (Adamant Media Corporation, 2004); see also Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century: Cerebral localization and its biological context from Gall to Ferrier letter of Bain to Mill from 1851 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 102-3. 101. John Stuart Mill, Bains Psychology in Dissertations and Discussions: Political, Philosophical, and Historical, 3:116-117.

PAGE 73

64 Bains focus on motion was an attempt to generate a shift in the associationist view of mind from the passive sensationalis m it had received from Locke. Attempts by Thomas Brown, James Mill, and David Hartley to infuse it with one species or another of motion, notwithstanding, associationism remained wedded to the empiricist notion of passive mental states and sensation as the primary, if not only, source of understanding.102 Bains analysis of motor phenome na was the first union of the new physiology with a detailed association psychology in the English tradition and he thereby laid the psychological foundations of a thoroughgoing sensory-motor psychophysiology.103 It was, however, sometime be fore physiology was refined enough to provide both the experimental evidence and an adequate theoretical explanation for the association of the mind with the cerebral hemispheres and for the association of the hemispheres and the ganglia.104 Bain continually edited his work to take account of advances in physiology, though his understand ing of physical structures rendered his work sketchy and incomplete. Nevertheless, Bain provided a discussion of motor phenomena which gave association psyc hology a balanced sensory-motor view.105 Bains separate chapter on the brain and the nerves, comprised mostly of quotations from two highly recognized treatises of the day, moved John Stuart Mill to remark that no rational person can doubt th e closeness of the connection between the functions of the nervous system and the phenomena of mind, nor can think any exposition of the mind satisfactory, into wh ich that connection does not enter as a 102. Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation 114. 103. Ibid. 104. Ibid. 113-114. 105. Ibid., 114.

PAGE 74

65 prominent feature.106 This feature of Bains work, as Mill declared, was formative. No matter how little relevance it had to the rest of the work or how little it actually explained the psychological processes under discussion, fu ture writers almost invariably included a chapter on the structure and phys iology of the nervous system.107 As for the emotions, Bains development led him to declare the emotions as separate and distinct from sensations under the very broad heading of feelings. Feelings are divided into Sensations (including Muscular Feelings) and Emotions. Sens ations, as such are primary and simple; Emotions, as such, are secondary and compound.108 Having dispatched the Sensations in the prior opus, Bain set out to sift through the more nebulous Emotions in 1859. As was the case with the former work, the latter, The Emotions and the Will underwent regular revision. From the beginning, however, Bain insisted that the emotions, unlike sens ations, are derivative a nd do not depend on the impact of the outer world on the sensory organs: Mind is distinguished by the three attributes Feeling, Volition, and Intellect. In the previous volume [ The Senses and the Intellect ], attention was called to the dependence of all me ntal workings whatever on Bodily Organs; and, in treating the sensations there was given, in each instance, not merely the mental side, but the p hysical also In the Sensations, the physical side includes both the mode of action on a sensitive surface, and the outward manifestations or diffused wave of effects. In the Emotions, the first is wanting. Our attention is thereby limited to the second, which consequently rises into greater importance.109 106. J.S. Mill, Dissertations and Discussions, 3:110, quoted in Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation 119; the reference to the two treatises is found in Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century 110. 107. Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation 119. 108. Alexander Bain, The Emotion and the Will, 3rd ed. (London: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1875), 69; all references are to Elibron Cl assics series unabridged facsimile of this edition (Adamant Media Corporation, 2003). 109. Ibid., 3.

PAGE 75

66 In this view, Bain found himself in essentia l agreement with Spencer and Darwin. The innovation here was that the Brownian distinction between sensation and emotion, like the category of emotion itself, was now physicali zed with reference to the nervous system by these mid-century psychologists: emotions, th ey said, had a central nervous origin and were in some sense secondary and sensations had a peripheral ner vous origin and were primary.110 Thus was established a continuum between mind and body that would place psychological theory on a s ounder scientific footing. This innovation, however, was not w ithout a price. Along with the Brownian categorization of mental states into thoughts, sensations a nd emotions, the evolutionaryphysiological school inherited the problematic inclusivity of the category of emotions that had been another feature of Browns scheme.111 There is, as Dixon points out, a veritable hodge-podge of feeling evident in th e table of contents. After discussing feeling and emotion in general he considered thirteen topics: emotions of harmony and conflict, emotions of relativity, emotion of terror, tender emotions, em otions of self, emotion of power, irascible emotion, emotions of actio n/pursuit, emotions of intellect, emotions of sympathy and imitati on, ideal emotion, the aesthetic emotions, the ethical emotions.112 Thus it was that critics were dismissive of Bains work on the emotions. His list of the special emotions is a pot-pourri of the psychological, ph ilosophical, and physiological issues of the day, and any attempts to make a coherent position from it disparate parts consistently fail.113 110. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions 156. 111. Ibid., 157. 112. Ibid. 113. Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation, 127.

PAGE 76

67 Bains union of physiology and associationist psychol ogy produced an uneasy marriage. As long as the association psychology continued to rely on individual experience and the subtleties of philosophical arguments it failed in its investigations of emotional phenomena.114 It could offer no apparent a ccount for the content of mental life beyond sensory and perceptual stimulation of the individual, notwithstanding Bains intricate theory of motor-development along the lines of the Laws of Association. Moreover, it could not account for any phe nomena that might be described as transgenerational imparting of knowledge, instin ct, or predisposition. Developments in biology and evolutionary theory, meanwhile, were giving rise to a whole new set of questions: With what does the individual organism begin as a result of the biological history of its species? What power does it have to change or effect its inheritance? Is the means of transmission of this inheritance organic or cultural? To what exte nt is the mind only a phenomenon of consciousness and habit? What relative weight is to be given to the various descriptive languages and conceptual frameworks available to the informed psycho-physiologist? Is he to write in the registers of science or philosophy, of specialization or the wider culture?115 Spencer had been critical of Bain for altoge ther ignoring evolutionary theory and Bain responded, if only half-heartedly, by adding a lengthy chapter on the evolution of the mind to the third edition of the Emotions in which he entertained such topics as instinct, habit, the inheritance of emotions and various associated behaviors.116 However, Bain remained quite reserved in hi s acceptance of evolution. As late as 1881, in a review of 114. Ibid., 128. 115. Rylance, Victorian Psychology 209. 116. Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation, 183-186.

PAGE 77

68 the third edition of Spencers Principles [ of Psychology ], he was pointing, rather sniffily, to the fact that Evolution wa s not yet a validated theory.117 Notwithstanding Bains reticence when it came to the question of Darwinian evolution, his contribution to the history of the emotions was, as we have seen, two-fold. First, he brought Browns distinction betw een sensation and emotion into currency and, in accounting for both, introduced contemporary phys iological theory into the analysis of psychological phenomena. Secondly, he infused a ssociationism with a theory of activity that rescued the understanding of mind from its tendenc y toward flaccid, reactive sensationalism. In both instances, Bain left his mark on emerging psychological theory but both contributions proved more suggestiv e than normative and thus merely signal a pending transition in the history of the emotions. F. From Spencer and Darwin to William James Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Herbert Spencer (18201903) were the two, though by no means only, leading theorists to at tempt an evolutionary account of the origin of the emotions. Darwins The Origin of Species118 exploded upon the scientific community in 1859, four years after Spencers groundbreaking; The Principles of Psychology119 had appeared. It is today generally acknowledged that Darwins was the more accurate view of evolution in general and the heritability of mental faculties in particular. However, this twentieth-century ve rdict should not blind us to the historical 117. Rick Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 218. 118. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray, 1859). 119. Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Psychology (London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1855).

PAGE 78

69 situation in the mid-to-late nineteenth centur y, for these two versions of the development hypothesis existed side by side for at least a quarter of a century and their differences were frequently blurred even by informed commentators.120 Herbert Spencer was, like Bain, a se lf-taught scholar of humble origin and one of two leading lights of psychology in English-sp eaking countries during the second half of the nineteenth century. It was Spencers leg acy to have commingled associationism and evolutionary theory. His evolutionary associationism freed him from the usual procedure of starting at birth with a tabula rasa and explaining the development of the complex phenomena of instinct, emotion, a nd intellectual functi ons on the basis of individual experience alone.121 Influenced by Bain, Spencer adapted associationism to evolutionary theory, in part due to the lim ited ability of associationism to account for either instinct or emotion. This weakness had been identified by Mill in his review of Bain. Observation was, for Spencer, su fficient to identify the weakness. The doctrine maintained by some philo sophers, that all the desires, all the sentiments, are generated by the e xperiences of the individual is so glaringly at variance with hosts of facts, that I ca nnot but wonder how any one should ever have entertained it. Not to dwell on the multiform passions displayed by the infant, before yet there has been such an amount of experience as could by any possibility suffice for the elaboration of all passio ns; I will simply point to the most powerful of all passions the amatory passion as one which, when it first occurs, is absolutely antecedent to all relative experience whatever.122 120. Rylance, Victorian Psychology, 225. 121. Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation, 180-1. 122. Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Psychology second enlarged and revised ed. in 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1872), 2:606.

PAGE 79

70 It was abundantly clear to Spencer th at attempts to locate the genesis of emotion solely in the experience of the individua l were in opposition to the facts and thus unjustified. Evolutionary theory provided a feasible explanation. By the accumulation of small increments, arising from the constant experiences of successive generations the tendency of all the component psychical states to make each othe r nascent, will become gradually stronger. And when ultimately it beco mes organic, it will constitute what we call a sentiment, or propensit y, or feeling, having this set of circumstances for its object.123 This process for the trans-generational acqui rement of experience, and the attending emergence of new emotions and instincts, was rooted solely in the constancy of environmental factors. Acquired habits are passed from generation to generation until they become fixed in the nervous system.124 Emotions, like all psychological phenomena, are instances of the inheritance of acquired characteri stics through repetition and association. What the individual feels as homogeneous emotions, undecomposable into specific experiences, are in fact the organized results of certain daily-repeated combinations of mental states.125 The process is mechan istic and the results are deterministic, inspired by the model of Lamarckian theory. Spencers rejection of natural selection and his lack of apprec iation for Bains theory of activity gave his developmental theory of adaptation to the environment a tendency toward passivity that could not account for deviation or spontaneity.126 123. Ibid. 124. Young, Mind, Brain and Adaptation 186. 125. Ibid. 126. Ibid., 183-4.

PAGE 80

71 At about the time his The Descent of Man127 was going to print in 1871, Darwin was starting a new book, The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals,128 a work grounded in observations of his infant son, t hose of other people and animals he had solicited from missionaries, z ookeepers, and asylum direct ors over a span of thirty years.129 He was motivated, in part, by the wr itings of John Abercrombie and James Mackintosh, both of whom had been deep ly influenced by Thomas Brown and had adopted Browns terminology and his tripar tite division of mental states. Darwin compiled the extensive notes and observations of thirty years in the attempt to account for the formation of instincts as inherited ha bits of volition that became, over time, unconscious and, thus, involuntary.130 Darwins primary concern in the Expression was not to develop a theory of the emotions but ra ther to explain how particular emotions and the behaviors we have come to think of as their expressions might initially have become connected.131 The emotions, for Darwin, were cl osely tied to their expression. Emotions, having been formed by ac tions, will always lead to them.132 Interestingly, Darwins Expressions is relatively free of re ferences to natural selection as an explanatory hypot hesis. Natural selection is me ntioned only four times in nearly four hundred pages compared w ith over one hundred references in the Descent of Man.133 The reason is readily cl ear to the casual reader. 127. Charles Darwin, Descent of Man (London: John Murray, 1871). 128. Charles Darwin, The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animals (London: John Murray, 1872). 129. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 160. 130. Ibid., 162. 131. Ibid., 167. 132. Darwins marginal note in his copy of James Mackintosh, Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy (Edinburgh: Black, 1837), quoted by Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 166. 133. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 169.

PAGE 81

72 Emotional display, to be sure, had an evolutionary history. Darwins many comparisons of facial movements in children, adults, the insane, as well as in apes, dogs, and cats don e with the aid of photography and sketches showed similarities acros s sexes and mental capacities. This kind of comparative evidence bespoke a common origin for emotional expression. But since he could discover no social or communicative function in these emotional reactions unlike neo-Darwinians today his theory of natural sele ction did not readily apply.134 Yet, it was the doctrine of natural selection th at served as the hallmark of Darwins grand theory and had such a telling influence on the next generation of psychologists, most notably, William James. Within the narrower scope of affective theory, however, it was Spencer and Darwin, together, who infused ps ychology with a sense of history not just the history of individuals app ealed to by associationist ps ychologists, but the deeper history of the human race that th eir evolutionary hypotheses invoked.135 William James (1842-1910) was very much a product of his time and the vicissitudes of nineteenth century psychological theory. Reared in one of the most gifted and original families America has yet produced, during a period of tremendous ferment in American intellectual history, at the epicente r of its flowering, Jame s came to personify much of the creative richness a nd intellectual crossc urrents that marked Cambridge in the second half of the nineteenth century. Slow to mature, depressive and ambivalent by nature, James responded to fifteen years of cacophonic vocational callings, studying, in turn, painting, chemistry, anatomy, natural hist ory, and medicine before settling on first, psychology and later, philosophy. These sundry pu rsuits and an extraordinary gift for prose distinctly qualif ied him for the tremendous contribu tion he was about to make to 134. Robert J. Richards, Darwin on Mind, Morals and Emotions, in Cambridge Companion to Darwin, eds. Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 110. 135. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 178.

PAGE 82

73 the understanding of the mind and the nascen t field of physiological psychology. His formative years were marked, incidentall y, by immersion in the writings of William Hamilton, Dugald Stewart, and Thomas Brown.136 It was, however, exposure to the rese arch of the German schools that whet his appetite for psychology and served to steer him in a more or less permanent quest to attain its status as a science. During one ei ghteen month period in Berlin, in the late 1860s, having attended lectures in physiology at the University and having been awed by the appearance of its well appointed physio logy laboratory, James wr ote presciently to his friend, Thomas Ward. It seems to me that perhaps the time has come for psychology to begin to be a science some measurements have already been made in the region lying between the physical changes in the nerves and the appearance of consciousness-at (in the shape of sense perceptions), and more may come of it. I am going on to study what is already known, and perhaps may do some work at it. Helmho ltz and a man named Wundt at Heidelberg are working at it, and I hope to go to them in the summer.137 Experimentalism had already become the hallm ark of serious science and James was to play a key role in its introduction into ps ychology on the American continent, and in particular, in its employment in theorizing about the emotions. The Jamesian era saw shifts in the geography of academic psychology as well as its disciplinary boundari es. While Scottish philosophy, and English biology and neurophysiology, had led the way in the psychology of emotions earlier in the ni neteenth century, the drive to experimentalism in psychology found th e centre of gravity shifting first to Germany, during the 1880s, es pecially to Wilhelm Wundts 136. William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), 2 (first published in New York: Longman, Green and Co., 1902). 137. Henry James, ed., The Letters of William James 2 vols. (Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1920), 118-119.

PAGE 83

74 laboratory of psychophysics in Leip zig the first of its kind, founded in the late 1870s and thence to America.138 During a leave of absence in 1892, James raised funds for a new psychology laboratory at Harvard and assisted in filling his vacant position by retaining the services of Hugo Mnsterberg (1863-1916), who had taken his Ph.D. under Wundt at Leipzig and established himself at Freiburg after receiving his M.D. from Heidelberg.139 The study of Jamess thought on the em otions usually begins with the paper, What is an emotion? which appeared in Bains journal, Mind in 1884 and appeared with very little change as chapter XXV in The Principles of Psychology, the massive, two tome work that made him world famous.140 The gist of the theory of emotion, developed independently of James in Denmark by Carl Lange (1834-1900), is the claim that emotion originates as a bodily rather than mental state. Our natural way of thinking about these standard emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called the emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My thesis, on the contrary is that the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION of the exciting fact, a nd that our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the emotion. Common sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately i nduced by the other, that the bodily manifestations must first be inte rposed between, and that the more rational statement is that we feel so rry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are sorry, angry, or fearfu l, as the case may be. Without the bodily states following on the percep tion, the latter would be purely 138. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 206. 139. Bruce Kuklick, Rise of American Philosophy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 186ff. 140. William James, What is an emotion? in Essays in Psychology, from The Works of William James, 13 vols., ed. Frederick H. Burkhardt (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1983), vol. 11; and William James, The Principles of Psychology, 2 vols. (New York: Dover Publications, 1950).

PAGE 84

75 cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we could not actually feel afraid or angry.141 A few pages later we find James making an even more reductionistic claim that he believed emotion to be constituted wholly by the associated bodily reflexes. I now proceed to urge the vital point of my whole theory, which is this. If we fancy some strong emotion, a nd then try to abstract from our consciousness of it all the feelings of its characteristic bodily symptoms, we find we have nothing left behind, no mindstuff out of which the emotion can be constituted, and that a cold and neutral state of intellectual perception is all that remains.142 The cold and neutral intelle ctual perception could not po ssibly refer to any emotion. A purely disembodied human emotion is a nonentity. I do not say that it is a contradiction in the nature of things, or that pure spirits are condemned to cold intellectua l lives; but I say that for us emotion dissociated from all bodily feeling is inconceivable. The more closely I scrutinize my states, the more pers uaded I become, that whatever moods, affections, and passions I have, are in very truth constituted by, and made up of, those bodily changes we ordinarily call their expression or consequence; and the more it seems to me that if I were to become corporally anaesthetic, I should be excluded from the life of the affections, harsh and tender alike, an d drag out an existence of merely cognitive or intellectual form.143 As Dixon notes, with no clear definitions or delineation, plainly, in Jamess theory, there is a conflation of mood, a ffection, and passion which together are subsumed under the category of emotion, a confusion of concepts traceable to Brown.144 Among the other striking features of th e theory is the emphasis on an assumed chasm between the emotions and reason, ag ain, possibly a residue of Jamess early reading of Brown and a clear indication that James did not consider the possibility that 141. James, Essays in Psychology 170. 142. Ibid., 173. 143. Ibid., 174-5. 144. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions, 208, n14.

PAGE 85

76 to he reason or cognition might be an instinct or other faculty resulting from adaptation.145 While the new science of psychology had some success in moving away from mindbody dualism, there was little development in the deconstruction of the reason-emotion dichotomy.146 As we will see, however, James developed a nativistic theory of instinct during the three years following the appearan ce of the famous 1884 essay, a model that subsumed his theory of emotion and tende d to blur the boundary between reason and emotion. When it appeared in 1884, Jamess counter-intuitive theory of emotion stirred up a storm of controversy and was assailed on several other accounts by his contemporaries, beginning with William Gurney in the same issue of Mind. Writing in 1896, H.N. Gardiner reviewed the salient issues in ensuing dozen years of dispute.147 First, there was the absence of uniformity in the relations of emotions to their expression. If the theory were true, and emotions were really nothing but awarenesses of bodily changes, then, at least in the same subject, one set of bodily changes should uniformly give rise the same emotion, and by the same token, any one emotion could be associated only with one set of bodily changes.148 However, such is not the case as when we observe t phenomenon of weeping as an expression of both joy and sorrow. Furthermore, as Gardiner reminded his readers, some bodily symptoms for example laughing, sobbing, 145. Ibid., 227. 146. Ibid., 228. 147. H.N. Gardiner, Notes in The Philosophical Review 5 (January, 1896): 102-112. 148. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions 214.

PAGE 86

77 shivering, and sneezing can and do o ccur without any associated emotion.149 Hence, the theory fails to adequately distinguish between emotion and non-emotion. Aesthetic emotion, which is generally unaccompanied by bodily reflex, cannot be qualified as emotion. Lastly, the theory assumes, perhaps wrongly, that in emotion there must be a cause and effect relationship between the me ntal and the physical aspects and overlooks, as David Irons (1870-1907) suggested, the possi bility that emotion is independent of bodily changes.150 The mental and physical aspe cts of emotion could be simply concomitant without one necessa rily producing the other. In fact, however, James had conceived a strong case against parallelism, a form of automaton-theory then being advanced by William Kingdom Cliffo rd (1845-79). James incorporated it into chapter five of his Principles of Psychology generally a revision of his 1879 essay, Are We Automata?151 The heart of his argument, from common sense, was that the evidence for interaction between body and mind, or more precisely, between brain and mind, was too compelling to believe there was no interference of one with the other. In terms of emotions, the inference was simply too paradoxical to be credible. That inference is that feelings, not causing nerve-actions, cannot even cause each other. To ordinary common sense, felt pain is, as such not only the cause of outward tears and cr ies, but also the cause of such inward events as sorrow, compuncti on, desire, or inventive thought. So the consciousness of good news is the direct producer of the feeling of joy, the awareness of premises that of the belief in conclusions. But according to the automaton-theory, e ach of the feelings mentioned is only the correlate of some nerve-movement whose cause lay wholly in a previous nerve-movement. The fi rst nerve-movement called up the 149. Gardiner, Notes in Philosophical Review 103. 150. Ibid., 111. 151. James, Essays in Psychology, 38-61.

PAGE 87

78 second; whatever feeling was attached to the second consequently found itself following upon the feeling that wa s attached to the first. If, for example, good news was the consciousness correlated with the first movement, then joy turned out to be the correlate in consciousness of the second. But all the while the items of the nerve series were the only ones in causal continuity; the items of th e conscious series, however inwardly rational their sequence, were simply juxtaposed.152 That said, James maintained a kind of agnos ticism about causality in general and often pointed to Hume as providing in the end, a fallibalistic mysticism and surrogate for a scientific account of the agency of the im material mind. James concluded, The only trouble that remains to haunt us is the metaphys ical one of understand ing how one sort of world or existent thing can aff ect or influence another at al l. This trouble, however, since it also exists inside of both worlds, a nd involves neither physical improbability nor logical contradiction, is relati vely small. I confess, ther efore, that to posit a soul influenced in some mysterious way by the brain-states and responding to them by conscious affections of its own, seems to me th e line of least logical resistance, so far as we yet have attained.153 Nevertheless, giving priority to bodily reflex over the mental element in causing emotion seems a highly su bjective choice on the part of James when, at the end of the day, all he can scientifically demonstrate is concomitant variation between the two phenomena. Dixons own criticism is focused on the reductionist William James whose 1884 theory of emotion, he believed, was akin to the epiphenomenal views of Thomas Huxley.154 152. James, Principles of Psychology, 1:133. 153. Ibid., 1:181. 154. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions 210.

PAGE 88

79 The brain, [Huxley] claimed, received stimulation from the environment and issued motor acts as a result; the engine of the central nervous system simply transformed one kind of energy into another, without consciousness playing any mediating ro le at all. Rather, conscious mind hovered over brain activity like mist s of steam coughed up from the dynamo actually doing the work.155 Dixons assertion is that Jamess theory is an unambiguous reduction of emotions to products of physical processes that, in turn, qualified it as epiphenomenalism.156 [James] saw the spiritual fact of emoti onal experience as purely a product of bodily changes, and such a view might reasona bly be called epiphenomenalist if not a materialistic account of the spir itual aspect of human life.157 The charge of epiphenomenalism, however, cannot account fo r the importance James placed on will and independence of the mind. In order to bring th ese disparate elements of James views into some measure of harmony, the theory of em otion must be understood in relation to his evolutionary theories of instinct and will. Like many of his generation, James had become enamored of Spencers evolutionism, despite being pained by the inference that mind was forged solely and passively by response to the external environment158 In some measure through the influence of Chauncey Wright and Charle s Peirce, James gradually shifted from Spencers mechanistic theory to Darwinis m through which he began to perceive an 155. Robert J. Richards, Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 430-431. 156. Dixon, From Passions to Emotions 210. 157. Ibid. 158. Richards, Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior 426.

PAGE 89

80 argument for the independence of the mind.159 In a series of essays published during the 1880s, sandwiched around his famous paper on emotion, James presented theories of will and instinct. The theory of w ill supported the theory of emotion, which, in turn, supported the theory of instinct. The first of these essays appeared in 1880 under the title, The Feeling of Effort, which was expanded into a prodigiou s 106-page chapter on will in the Principles.160 For James, reflex, instinctive, and emotiona l movements were all viewed as primary performances automatic and involuntary responses.161 Richard M. Gale traces the rise of voluntary will in James account. For James, all actions initially are involuntary. In some cases a sensory idea of the motion or its immediate effects is formed. This creates a neural pathway from the brain to th e concerned motor organ so that now mere consciousness of this idea causes the action. In the simplest cases, that of the ideo-motor will, there is no fiat or effort. But human beings quickly become more complex so that for many ideas they might entertain there is a competing idea which blocks its motor discharge. Such a case of conflict sets the stage for an occurrence of an effort to attend to one of these competing id eas so that it alone will fill consciousness for a sufficient time with sufficient intensity and thereby lead to its motor discharge. This effort to attend is the voluntary will. The essential achievement of the will when it is most voluntary, is to ATTEND to a difficult object and hold it fast before the mind. The sodoing is the fiat ; and it is a mere physiologi cal incident that when the object is thus attended to, immediate motor consequences should ensue ( Principles of Psychology 2.1166).162 This notion of will buttressed the view of emotion found in the famous essay of 1884, where bodily sensation holds priority. 159. Ibid., 424. 160. Ibid., 437; citation for James essay is The Feeling of Effort included in James, Essays in Psychology, 83-124, first appearing in Anniversary Memoirs of the Bost on Society of Natural History (Boston: Boston Society of Natural History, 1880). 161. James, Principles of Psychology, 2:487. 162. Richard M. Gale, John Deweys Naturalization of William James, The Cambridge Companion to William James ed. Ruth Anna Putnam (Cambridge: Ca mbridge University Press, 1997), 57.

PAGE 90

81 As we have seen, in that essay Ja mes described emotions as mere feelings of bodily response. In an 1887 paper, What is an Instinct? James advanced a comprehensive and nativistic theory of instinct that encompassed the theory of emotion.163 In this essay James joined others in defining an instinct as the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce certain ends without foresight of the ends and without previous education in the performance.164 Having earlier assert ed that cognition does not cause emotion, James went on to iterate hi s position that emotion is a direct response to the instinctive wisdom of the body a stage in the rele ase of innate instinctive reactions.165 Surprisingly, instinct and emotion became, in James view, difficult to distinguish. In speaking of the instincts it has be en impossible to keep them separate from the emotional excitements whic h go with them. Objects of rage, love, fear, etc., not only prompt a man to outward deeds, but provoke characteristic alterations in his at titude and visage, and affect his breathing, circulation, and other orga nic functions in specific ways. When the outward deeds are inhibited, these latter emotional expressions still remain, and we read the anger in the face, though the blow may not be struck, and the fear betrays itself in voice and color, though one may suppress all other sign. Instinctive reactions and emotional expressions thus shade imperceptibly into each other. Every object that excites an instinct excites an emotion as well. Emotions, however, fall short of instincts, in that the emotional reaction usually terminates in the subjects own body, whilst the instinc tive reaction is apt to go farther and enter into practical relations with the exciting body.166 Working in tandem, instincts and the concurre nt emotions drive behavior in patterns or habits altered only by slight variations in e xperience, the mind playing only a secondary 163. William James, What is an instinct? Scribners Magazine 1 (1887): 355-365. 164. Ibid., 355. 165. Richards, Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior 437. 166. James, Principles of Psychology, 2:442.

PAGE 91

82 role of differentiation. Wherever the mind is elevated enough to discriminate; wherever several distinct sensory elements must comb ine to discharge the reflex-arc; wherever, instead of plumping into action instantly at the firs t rough intimation of what sort of a thing is there, the agent waits to see which one of its kind it is and what the circumstances are of its appearance; wherever di fferent individuals and different circumstances can impel him in different wa ys; wherever these are the conditions we have a masking of the elementary constitution of the instinctive one.167 The repertoire of possible responses points, once again, not only to the blurring of any distinction between reason and emotion, but between reason and instinct. Thus, then, without troubling ourselv es about the words instinct and reason, we may confidently say that however uncertain mans reactions upon his environment may sometimes seem in comparison with those of lower creatures, the uncertainty is probably not due to their possession of any principles of action which he lacks, but to his possessing all the impulses that they have, and a great many more besides. In other words, there is no material antagonism be tween instinct and reason. Reason, per se, can inhibit no impulses; the only th ing that can neutralize an impulse is an impulse the other way. Reason may, however, make an inference which will set loose the impulse the other wa y; and thus, though the animal richest in reason might be the animal richest in instinctive impulses too, he would never seem the fatal automaton which a merely instinctive animal would be.168 In a second essay on instinct in th e same year, James underscored his core belief that the fundamental difference between an imals and humans is not, as conventional wisdom has it, that animals possess more in stincts and that by developing increased powers of reason, humans are less reliant on instinct.169 167. James, What is an instinct? 360. 168. Ibid. 169. William James, Some Human Instincts, Popular Science Monthly 31 (June 1887): 160-170, 666-681.

PAGE 92

83 It is generally considered that a cardinal differentia of the human race is its poor endowment in the way of ins tincts I believe this doctrine to be a great mistake. Instead of having fewer, man has more instincts than any other mammal. He has so many th at they bar one anothers path, and produce an indeterminateness of action in him, supposed to be incompatible with that automatic uniformity which, according to popular belief, characterizes all instinctive performances.170 This theme was prevalent in the two volumes of the Principles that finally came to press in 1890, ten years behind schedule. This groundbreaking work, largely a compilation of essay material spanning those ten years, was reviewed somewhat critically by Peirce for the Nation, who began by stating the obvious. Upon this vast work no definitive judgment can be passed for a long time; yet it is probably safe to say that it is the most important contribution that has been made to the subject for many years. Certainly it is one of the most weighty pr oductions of American thought. The directness and sharpness with which we shall state some objections to it must be understood as a tribute of respect. Beginning with the most external and insignificant characters, we cannot much admire it as a piece of bookmaking; for it misses the unity of an essay, and almost that of a connected series of essays, while not attaining the completeness of a thorough treatise. It is a large assortment of somewhat heterogeneous articles loosely tied up in one bag, with tendencies toward sprawling.171 Despite its meandering and, at ti mes, disjointed style, James work marked the apex of the development of emotion theory in the ni neteenth century English-speaking world and directed the discourse of nearly a ge neration of researchers and writers. Beginning with an 1868 series of essays for the Journal of Speculative Philosophy Charles Sanders Peirce de veloped his own theory of emotion that, while 170. Ibid., 160. 171. Charles Sanders Peirce, James Psychology, in The Nation (July 2, 1891): 15; in CN 1 (1975).

PAGE 93

84 never completely refined, was both original and suggestive and ri ghtly belongs to any study of the nineteenth century philosophy of mind, though such ha s rarely been the case.

PAGE 94

85 Chapter Three Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion Consciousness, then, does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as chain or train do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A river or a stream are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter, let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. --James, Principles of Psychology As for the minds watching its own operations, no such thing is possible. It is pure delusion. Take, for example, a train of ideas. A man may recall some of the ideas of the train. But what are they? They are objects, imaginary objects, products of the minds operation, but not the movement of mind itself. --Peirce, Collected Papers A. Streams and Trains: Peirce, James and Consciousness General access to Peirces theory of emotion is more readily achieved through juxtaposition of his vi ews on matters of the mind with t hose of James. James and Peirce represent a special instance of what Royce wa s saying when he wrot e that, contrast is the mother of clearness.1 Despite their unflagging friends hip and deep mutual respect, Peirce and James were often philosophically at odds. Peirces le tters to James and occasional reviews of his work were frequen tly polemical, reflecting not only the deep differences between them in perspective bu t in philosophical attitude and temperament.2 As we have noted, James was characteristically generous in his praise of Peirces work and acknowledged the intellectual debt he owed by dedicating The Will to Believe to his Epigraph. James, Principles of Psychology 1, Chap. 9. Epigraph. CP 7.376. 1. Josiah Royce The World and the Individual 2 vols. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1901; New York: Dover Publications, 1959), 2:262. 2. See, for example, Ralph Barton Perry, The Thought and Character of William James (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1935), 2:423ff.

PAGE 95

86 old friend in 1897. What is sometimes overlooked, because of the remonstrant attitude Peirce adopted toward James, is the stimula tion and suggestion that James work often provided him.3 This was particularly true in the case of the Will to Believe. Despite his misgivings about the title phrase and it s implications, a book which James always regretted not having called, the Right to Believe, Peirce was moved to reassess his views on, among other things, individual will.4 Also, as Nathan Houser notes, from at least that time [1897] on, the ro le of instinct, or sentiment, as a co-participant with reason in the acquisition of knowledge became a ke y concern for Peirce, and it would not be long until he came to regard ethics and esthe tics as epistemically more fundamental than logic.5 This influence will be further explored in the subsequent chapters. We might begin by contrasting th ree types of theory of mental activity. Anglophone philosophy has been most fond of what James Crombie calls the first-person type, an approach well represented by James.6 This type is adhered to by those who, like James, maintain that we possess a privilege d access to the contents of our own minds, and that nothing can be as in corrigible as knowledge of our own mental states. These contents of our introspecti on, these inner mental phenomena, such as thoughts, dreams, pains, and desires, are readily contrasted with the physical phenomena or objects of the 3. See CP 8.296 where, writing to James in 1904, Pe irce acknowledges: Your mind and mine are as little adapted to understanding one another as two minds could be, and therefore I always feel that I have more to learn from you than from anybody. 4. See Ralph Barton Perry, The Thought and Character of William James 438, for Peirces views of the title and 488 for James; see also CP 5.3 for Peirces feelings about its philosophical implications and CP 6.182 for Peirces acknowledgement of the occasionally discourteous tone he took with James. 5. Nathan Houser, introduction to The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, ed. Peirce Edition Project (Bloomington and Indianap olis: Indiana University Press, 1998), 2:xxi. 6. E. James Crombie, Peirce on our Knowledge of Mind, Two Centuries of Philosophy in America ed. Peter Caws (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980), 77-85.

PAGE 96

87 outer world. This approach to the know ledge of mind treats consciousness as completely insular and the hallmark of this subjectivism is inescapable privacy. The only states of consciousness that we naturally deal with are found in personal consciousness, minds, selves, concrete particular Is and yous. Each of these minds keeps its own thoughts to itself. There is no giving or bartering between them Absolute insulation, irredu cible pluralism, is the law. It seems as if the elementary psychic fact were not thought or this thought or that thought, but my thought, every thought being owned. Neither contemporaneity, nor proxim ity in space, nor similarity of quality and content are able to fuse thoughts together which are sundered by this barrier of belonging to diffe rent personal minds. The breaches between such thoughts are the most absolute breaches in nature.7 Within the thinking subject thoughts are expe rienced as a continuous whole, a stream, unobstructed by gaps in time or altered stat es of consciousness. The awaking subject understands the sleeping, dreaming subject as belonging to self. This approach to the knowledge of mind can be contrasted with Crombies thirdperson type or what C.F. Delaney ca lls the externalist tradition.8 It is represented both by behaviorism and identity-theory analysis, wh ich analyze mental terms as referring to some overt, publicly identifiable feature of intelligent beings, such as their actual conduct or the current state of their brains and nervous systems.9 It is probably fair to mention that Quine believed that Peirce made a gene ral and explicit declarat ion for behaviorism, indeed, in the following terms: We have no power of Introspection, but all knowledge of the internal world is derived by hypothetical reasoning from our knowledge of external 7. James, Principles of Psychology 1:226. 8. Crombie in Caws, Peirce and our Knowledge of Mind, 79; and C.F. Delaney, Peirces Account of Mental Activity, Synthese 41 (1979): 25-26. 9. Crombie in Caws, Peirce and our Knowledge of Mind, 78.

PAGE 97

88 facts.10 The view expressed below is that wh ile Peirces account of belief in the pragmatic maxim is certainly behavioristic in spirit Quine asserted that beliefs construed as dispositions to action constitute behavioristic semantics there is still much that separates him from vulgar behaviorism. Both the first-person and the third-person approaches are fraught with well known difficulties. Wittgensteins allegory of th e beetle in a box il lustrates the problem of private language inherent in first-person accounts.11 The third-person accounts of behaviorism and mental/physical identity thes es are no less troublesome. Intuitively, the report of a mental state, an acute pain for inst ance, seems more or other than that which is conveyed by pain behavior or by accounts of brain processes, es pecially to the one reporting the pain experience. The experience of pain and the mental process language used to report it, i.e., references to pain behavior and the brai n process language of neurons and C-fibers, may all have the same referent but have different meanings.12 Peirce is credited by Vincent Colapiet ro, James Crombie, and C.F. Delaney with providing a third type, an approach I will call inferentialist, in contrasting it with the intuitionist and externalist types.13 Peirces denial of a ny power of introspection, a faculty he identified as a salient feature of Cartesianism, is a constant theme in his 10. W.V. Quine, The Pragma tists Place in Empiricism, in Pragmatism eds. Robert J. Mulvaney and Philip M. Zeltner (Columbia: University of Sout h Carolina Press, 1981), 36 The quote of Peirce is found in CP 5.265. 11. Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a beetle. No one can look into anyone elses box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed., trans. G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), I3. 12. J.J.C. Smart, Sensations and Brain Processes, Materialism and the Mind-Body Problem ed. David M. Rosenthal, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 2000), 53-66. 13. Vincent Colapietro, Peirces Approach to the Self (Albany: State Univ ersity of New York Press, 1989); Crombie in Caws, Peirce and our Knowledge of Mind; Delany, Peirces Account of Mental Activity.

PAGE 98

89 writings beginning with the series of three essays published in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy in 1868-9.14 In the first of these essays Peirce clarified his understanding of the term. By introspection, I mean a direct pe rception of the internal world, but not necessarily a perception of it as internal. Nor do I mean to limit the signification of the word to intu ition, but would extend it to any knowledge of the internal world not derived from external observation.15 Thirty years later, Peirces zeal ous denial of this faculty wa s unabated. In his review of Karl Pearsons, Grammar of Science for The Popular Science Monthly, he wrote: [Pearson] tells us that that each of us is like the operator at a central telephone office, shut out from the external world, of which he is informed only by sense-impressions. No t at all! Few things are more completely hidden from my obs ervation than those hypothetical elements of thought which the psyc hologist finds reason to pronounce immediate, in his sense. But the starting point of all our reasoning is not in those sense-impressions, but in our percepts. When we first wake up to the fact that we are thinking be ings and can exercise some control over our reasonings, we have to set out upon our intellectual travels from the home where we already find ourselves. Now, this home is the parish of percepts. It is not inside our skulls either, but out in the open [emphasis mine]. It is the external world that we dire ctly observe. What passes within we only know as it is mirrored in external objects. In a certain sense, there is such a thing as introspection; but it consists in an interpretation of phenomena presenti ng themselves as external percepts. We first see blue and red things. It is quite a discovery when we find the eye has anything to do with them, an d a discovery still more recondite when we learn that there is an ego behind the eye, to which these qualities properly belong.16 And in a series of articles for The Monist in 1905, Peirce reiterated his position. 14. This series is comprised of Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man, Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2 (1868): 103-14; Some Consequences of Four Incapacities, Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2 (1868): 140-57; and Grounds of Validity of the Laws of Logic, Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2 (1869): 193-208 and appears in CP 5.213-263; it is commonly referred to as the Cognition Series and represents Pe irces critique of Cartesianism. 15. CP 5.244, 249. 16. CP 8.144 [1901]; review first appeared in Popular Science Monthly 58 (Jan. 1901): 296-306.

PAGE 99

90 Introspection is wholly a matter of inference. One is immediately conscious of his Feelings, no doubt; but not that they are feelings of an ego. The self is only inferred. There is no time in the Present for any inference at all, least of all for inference concerning that very instant. Consequently the present object must be an external object, if there be any objective reference in it.17 Peirce criticized James conf lation of feeling-qualities wi th thoughts as evidence for James wrong-headed and misdirected internalism.18 Our cognitive gaze is first directed outward and only by reflection turned inward, so that our knowledge of ourselves, our mental acts, and the data of consciousness is not immediate but logically parasitic on our more ordinary awareness of the objects around us.19 Peirce did not so much deny a power of introspection as he affirmed that such a faculty provided only a mediated, indirect and derivative access to our thoughts, and thus, no more secure than any other inference. Now the truth is that the data of introspection are altogether analogous to those of external observation. Introspection does not directly reveal what is immediately present to co nsciousness, at all; but only what seems to have been present from the standpoint of subsequent reflection. It does not even tell what the normal appearance from this subsequent standpoint is without its testimony being falsified at all times with serious accidental errors.20 Colapietro notes that According to [Peirce] we are unable to catch our own thought in flight; we cannot know what we are presen tly thinking, only what we have just now thought.21 Peirce tells us why. 17. CP 5.462. The series in The Monist was comprised of What Pragmatism Is, 15 (April 1905): 161-181; Issues of Pragmaticism, 15 (Oct. 1905): 481-499; and Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism, 16 (Oct. 1906): 492-546 with minor corrections listed in 17:160. 18. CP 8.81. 19. C.F. Delaney, Science, Knowledge and Mind (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1993), 102. 20. CP 7.420. 21. Colapietro, Peirces Approach to the Self 116

PAGE 100

91 We have already seen that an idea cannot be instantaneously present, that consciousness occupies time, and that we have no consciousness in an instant. So that at no time have we a thought. But now it further appears that in reference to a belief not only can we not have it in an instant, but it can not be present to the mind in any period of time. It does not consist in anything which is present to the mind, but in an habitual connection among the things which are successively present.22 The data of introspection are thus conditioned by prior percepts. Our logically initial data are per cepts. Those percepts are undoubtedly purely psychical, altogether of the na ture of thought. They involve three kinds of psychical elements, their qu alities of feeli ngs, their reaction against my will, and their generalizi ng or associating element. But all these I find out afterward. I see an inkstand on the table: that is a percept. Moving my head I get a different percept of the inkstand. It coalesces with the other. What I call the inkstand is a generalized percept, a quasi-inference from percepts, perhaps I might say a composite-photograph of percepts. In this psychical product is involved an element of resistance to me, whic h I am obscurely conscious of from the first. Subsequently, when I acce pt the hypothesis of an inward subject for my thoughts, I yield to th at consciousness of resistance and admit the inkstand to the standing of an external object. Still later, I may call this in question. But as soon as I do that, I find that the inkstand appears there in spite of me. If I turn away my eyes, other witnesses will tell me that it still remains. If we all leave the room and dismiss the matter from our thoughts, still a pho tographic camera would show the inkstand still there, with the same roundness, polish, and transparency and with the same opaque liquid with in. Thus, or otherwise, I confirm myself in the opinion that its characters are what they are, and persist at every opportunity in revealing themse lves, regardless of what you, or I, or any man, or generation of men, ma y think they are. That conclusion to which I find myself driven, struggl e against as I may, I briefly express by saying that the inkstand is a real thing. Of course, in being real and external, it does not in the least cea se to be a purely psychical product, a generalized precept, like everything of which I can take any sort of cognizance.23 22. CP 7.355. 23. CP 8.144.

PAGE 101

92 This is one way Peirce had of asserting his realism and at the same time rejecting the first-person subjectivism of James and, in turn, its view of mind as private and insular with every thought melding into the c ontinuous stream of consciousness. James had written in The Principles of Psychology: No thought even comes into direct sight of a thought in another personal consciousness than its own My thoughts belong with my other thoughts, and your thought with your other thoughts Each of these minds keeps its own thoughts to itself There is no giving or bartering between them Absolute insulation, irreducible pluralism, is the law.24 In unpublished notes, presumably prepared for his review of James Principles in The Nation Peirce responded: Is not the direct contrary nearer obs erved facts? Is not this pure metaphysical speculation? You think there must be such insulation, because you confound thoughts with feeling-qua lities; but all observation is against you. There are some small part iculars that a man can keep to himself. He exaggerates them and his personality sadly.25 Herein lays, perhaps, philosophica lly the biggest difference between the two friends. One way to state this difference betw een James and Peirce is to note that, for the former, the most fundamental feature of person al consciousness is the irreducible fact of privacy whereas, for the latter, its most basic characteristic is the ubi quitous possibility of communication.26 For Peirce, consciousness was a train of thought, each thought conditioned by those before it and conditioning t hose that follow. It is a product of signaction and, as he never tired of heralding, all thought is in signs,27 and, as such, is communicable. 24. James, Principles of Psychology 1:226 25. CP 8.81 26. Colapietro, Peirces Approach to the Self, 78. 27. For example, CP 1.191, 4.551, 5.251, 5.553, 7.356.

PAGE 102

93 every state of consciousness [is] an inference; so that life is but a sequence of inferences of a train of thought. At any instant then man is a thought, and as thought is a species of symbol, the general answer to the question what is man? is that he is a symbol.28 This last sentence is one of Peirces most in triguing ideas and one that we will return to in subsequent chapters. One further feature of Peirces theory of mind should be noted. Besides his denial of both the privileged status of introspectiv e data and the insulari ty of an individuals mental states and his affirmation of both the communicability of thought and the representative nature of thought, Peirce asse rted the externality of the mind. Again, he reminded his readers that the parish of precepts is not located, inside our skulls but [rather] out in the open.29 In an intriguing passage in which his prop is once again an inkstand, Peirce wrote the following in 1902 (a year after his review of Pearsons Grammar of Science ). The psychologists say that consciousne ss is the essential attribute of mind; and that purpose is only a special modification. I hold that purpose, or rather, final causation, of which purpose is the conscious modification, is the essential subjec t of psychologists own studies; and that consciousness is a special, and not a universal, accompaniment of mind A psychologist cuts out a lobe of my brain (nihil animale me alienum puto ), and then, when I find I cannot express myself, he says, you see your faculty of language was localized in that lobe. No doubt it was; and so, if he had filched my inkstand, I should not have been able to continue my discussion until I had got another. Yea, the very thoughts would not come to me. So my faculty of discussion is equally localized in my inkstand. It is localization in the sense in which a thing can be in two places at once.30 28. CP 7.583. 29. CP 8.144. 30. CP 7.366; see Peter Skagestad, Peirces Inkstand as an External Embodiment of Mind, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 35:551-561.

PAGE 103

94 This passage underscores Peirce s conviction that mind is much broader than personal consciousness and, as such, is not confined to the protoplasma l content of brain cells any more than an electric current resides inside the copper wire s of a circuit, an analogy he draws later in the same passage.31 Consciousness, as an unbroken train of thought, extends infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future Peter Skagestad suggests that Peirce is saying, thoughts come to him through the act of writing, so that having writing implements is a condition for having certain thoughts e.g., those thoughts that issue from trains of thoughts too long to be entertained in [his individual] human consciousness.32 In the notes he prep ared for his review in The Nation Peirce quoted from James Principles : The cortex is the sole organ of consciousness in man,33 and responded by observing, The reasoning seems pretty loose for settling all the important positions implied in this statement. What is consciousness anyway?34 Peirce argued that consciousne ss was both an exceptionally ambiguous ( CP 7.585) and vague ( CP 5.313) term, noting that it could be used to express the emotion that accompanies the reflection that we ha ve animal life, or it can refer to the introspective knowledge we have of our mental states, or it can denote the Kantian concept of I think, i.e., the apperception of being or the unity in thought.35 In a 1904 letter to James, in response to James essa y Does Consciousness Exist? that appeared in The Journal of Philosophy, Ps ychology, and Scientific Methods ,36 Peirce further noted 31. CP 7.366. 32. Skagestad, Peirces Inkstand as an External Embodiment of Mind, 35:551. 33. James, Principles of Psychology 1:66. 34. CP 8.72. 35. CP 7.585. 36. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 1 (September 1, 1904): 477-491.

PAGE 104

95 ma is s three usages of the term c onsciousness by a variety of contemporary schools. It was used by sensationalists, including James, to i ndicate mere feeling. It was used by others, such as Bain and Mary Whiton Calkins, to signify knowledge of bot h inner and outer worlds, i.e., of subject-consciousness and obj ect-consciousness. Thirdly, Peirce joined his own use the of the term with that of Thomists, Hegelians an d other Intellectualists who denote three modes of consciousness: that of feeling, that of experience (experience meaning precisely that which the history of my life has forced me to think; so that the idea of a struggle, of not me re twoness but active oppugnancy is in it), and [that of] the consciousness of the future (whether veridical or not is aside from the question) in expectation, which enters in to all general ideas acco rding to my variety of pragtism.37 In a largely unpublished manuscript, Pe irce had differentiated three states of mind as feeling, acting/reacting, and thinking.38 Each will be examined in some detail below. Asserting the vagueness of the term consci ousness and, once again, the externality of mind, Peirce wrote, Consciousness may mean any one of the three categ ories. But if it to mean Thought it is more without us than within.39 This vagueness as to the precise meaning of the term was, for Peirce, a product of its generality. As Robert Innis point out, Peirce refuses to identify consciousness with any one of its forms or to make it some mysterious inner realm or space. Cons ciousness is exemplified in each category; 37. CP 8.291. 38. MS 404, 1 ; Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel, eds., The Essential Peirce (Bloomington nd Indi aanapolis: Indiana University Pess, 1992), 2:4-5. 39. CP 8.256.

PAGE 105

96 t of s We will return to this criticism in our treatment of the general ss e ucts of e dual nature of experience produces a conscio ies of there are, in fact, differe nt kinds as well as elements of consciousness.40 Thought, too, is so general (and thus vague) that [it] is not necessarily connected with a brain. I appears in the work of bees, of crystals and throughout the purely physical world.41 Rulon Wells saw this tendency to overly generali ze, especially in rega rd to the concept mind, to be a fatal flaw, vitiating Peirces se miotic. As a practicing scientist, and more specifically a logician of sc ientific method, Peirce acquire d the tendency honestly. Often this attempt [to generalize] is inspired by the notion that generalizing is one of the thing one does in science.42 theory of signs below. Peirces inferentialism rests on th e conviction that every state of consciousne [is] an inference; so that life is but a sequence of infe rences or a train of thought.43 Objecting to James classification of mental states as either feelings or thoughts, Peirc suggested that a more useful, and clearly more scientific and logical, division would attempt to account not for mental states but rather for mental elements as feelingqualities, reactions (volition and experience), and habit-taking.44 The mental elements of consciousness, including the notion of an experiencing self are themselves prod inference. James Crombie describes how th usness of self. Peirces suggestion, which is to construe the existence and propert an empirical self as inferable from anomalies and contradictions in the 40. Robert E. Innis, Consciousness and the Play of Signs (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994), 17. 41. CP 4.551. 42. Rulon S. Wells, Criteria for Semiosis, A Perfusion of Signs ed. Thomas Sebeok (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1977), 1. 43. CP 7.583. 44. CP 8.80.

PAGE 106

97 o ng, h I had at first thought to observe in xternal facts. This, then, is the general line which Peirce proposes as an direct, intuitive introspection. In describing the nature of the categor y of Secondness or experience in his Lowell Lecture t oming fect on r fe that we conceive others things also to exist by virtue of their pivot of thought. To this elemen t I give the name of Secondness. Quoting this passage in one of his few pa pers on Peirce, John Dewey, who had taken Peirces courses on logic as a graduate student at Johns Hopkins during the early 1880s, observe world as it presents itself to us from how our observations of the external world seem to be affected by something not belonging to that world: The landscape appears to me today to be somehow not so cheerless and hard as it did yesterda y. But when I mention this fact t family and friends, it is universally ma intained that today is, if anythi even more wretched and miserable than yesterday and the landscape is certainly not more inviting. Upon reflection, then, I find that I cannot identify any precise feature in which todays landscape differs from yesterdays, either in the color of th e dead leaves against the sky or in the cold and the intensity of the wind. I therefore attribute to a change in my own inner state a change whic e alternative to the sugges tion that the contents of our minds are open to 45 s of 1903, Peirce had said: You have a sense of resistance and at the same time a sense of effort. There can be no resistance without effo rt; there can be no effort withou resistance. There are only two ways of describing the same experience. It is a double-consciousness. We beco me aware of ourself in bec aware of the not-self. The waking st ate is a consciousness of reaction; and as the consciousness itself is two-sided, so it has also two varieties; namely, action, where our modifica tion of other things is more prominent that their reaction on us, and perception, where their ef us is overwhelmingly greater than our effect on them. And this notion, of being such as other things make us, is such a prominent part of ou li reactions against each other. The idea of other, of not becomes a very 46 d that Peircean [consciousnesss] two-sidedness an ticipates what James later, but probably independently, called the do ublebarreledness of experience. Implicitly, but not explicitly, it anticipates the principle of 45. Crombie, Peirce on our Knowledge of Mind, 80. 46. CP 1.324.

PAGE 107

98 t to art in is two-sided affair, it is equally true that the organisms side is transaction. It all depe nds, so to say, on whose side we are on. In the next chapter we will examine Peirces inferential theory of mind in more detail, in particular the argument fo r the self from the 1868 Cognition Series. It is here that [Peirce] goes so far as to maintain that the whole notion that there is an empirical self which is the subject of my judgments and emotions is likewise reached by a species of inference from external facts and is in f act reached at about the time that we learn to distinguish between judgment and emotion, between fact and mere appearance. For now it is enough to note that Peirce s theory is distinct from either traditional first-person or the third-person approaches. Whether one si des with C.F. Delaney in the claim that Peirce is the philosopher who carried th rough [the] externalist program most selfconsciously and most completely, or views Peirces position as a unique third type, it is clear that it differs from a third-person a pproach in that it involves inference from the nature of ones own experience, but differs from the fi rst-person approach in that the experiences in question concern th e outer and not the inner world.51 indeterminancy, according to which, when a cat looks at a king, there is a bumping in which the king as well as the cat is moved though not of course to anything like the same extent. Perception of internal and external worlds is a matter of one and the same event the even which, in recent psychology, the same sensori-motor is applied. And while Peirce uses the word internal to express the organisms p th external to that of the part of environing conditions in the common 47 48 49 50 47. John Dewey, Peirces Theory of Linguistic Signs, Thought and Meaning, Journal of Philosophy 43 (Feb. 14, 1946): 90. 48. See footnote 14 for a description of the Cognition Series. 49. Crombie, Peirce on our Knowledge of Mind, 81. 50. C.F. Delaney, Peirces Account of Mental Activity, Synthese 41 (1979): 27. 51. Crombie, in Caws, Peirce and our Knowledge of Mind, 83.

PAGE 108

99 B. Categories and Semiotic In endeavoring to describe Peirces th eory of emotion, it is necessary to come to some understanding of his semiotic. In order to accomplish that, it is required that we account for his metaphysical categories, the basic universal conceptions upon which his semiotic and, thus, much of the rest of his philosophy rests. Charles Hartshorne, who, with Paul Weiss, edited the first six volumes of Peirces Collected Papers, did not overstate the case when he wrote that A lthough it receives but a bare mention in the writings published during his life time, Peirces theory of the categories is really his entire philosophy in its most techni cal and original aspects.52 Moreover, as Richard Bernstein adds, We can draw together the various st rands in [Peirces] thought by reference to his theory of categories which pervades all his thinking.53 In order to avoid getting bogged down in the more technical aspects, it will be necessary to keep our treatment somewhat general and cursory and focu sed upon the psychological purpose and application of the categories. Throughout his life, Peirce acknowledged an early debt to Kant and, for a time, counted himself among his mo st ardent disciples. I came to the study of philosophy not for its teaching about God, Freedom, and Immortality, but intensely curious about Cosmology and Psychology. In the early sixties I wa s a passionate devotee of Kant, at least as regarded the Transcendental Analytic in the Critic of the Pure Reason.54 I believed more implicitly in the two tables of the Functions 52. Hartshorne, Charles, Foreword to Categories of Charles Peirce ed. Eugene Freeman (Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1934). 53. Richard J. Bernstein, Charles Sanders Peirce and The Nation , in Charles Sanders Peirce, Contributions to The Nation Part 1, 1869-1893, compiled and annotated by Kenneth Laine Ketner (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1975), 21. 54. Critic of the Pure Reason see Charles Sanders Peirce, Contributions to the Nation, Part 3, 1901-1908 compiled and annotated by Ke nneth Laine Ketner and James Edward Cook (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1979), 95. Peir ce consistently and deliberately used Critic rather than the more

PAGE 109

100 i. of Judgment and the Categories th an if they had been brought down from Sina55 For much of the 1860s, Peirce was consumed with the study of Kant, a passion tempered by the critical eye of his fa ther, Benjamin Peirce. In pr eparing his 1867 essay, On a New List of Categories, Peirce recalled that, B efore I came to mans estate, being greatly impressed with Kants Critic of Pure Reason my father, who was an eminent mathematician, pointed out to me lacunae in Kants reasoning which I should probably not otherwise have discovered.56 Charles soon became immersed in these, committing three hours a day for two years to problem s he perceived in Kants formal logic.57 Peirces further investigations undermined his confidence in all of the details of Kants table [of the Functions of Judgment], but left him convinced that Kants project of deriving a system of categories from a logica l investigation of the structure of judgment and argument was of fundamental importance.58 Questions concerning Kants logic and his ultimate rejection of the unknowable ding an sich, notwithstanding, Peirce salvaged enough from Kants approach for a deduction of three a priori categories: Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness.59 Peirce presented his new list by reminding his readers of the groundwork Kant had laid in showing that the function of concep tions is to reduce common English translation of Critique because Kant, not being insane, did not propose to criticize the Reasoning Power, unless to approve it in one paragraph. But what he chiefly criticized and had reference to in his title was the faculty of knowing first principles, The Reason Consequently, his book, the Critik der reinen Vernunft, is a work concerni ng Critic of the Pure Reason. 55. CP 4.2 56. CP 1.560. 57. CP 4.2. 58. Christopher Hookway, Peirce (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), 83. 59. Both Christopher Hookway and Gayle Ormiston acknowledge that while Peirce did not, strictly speaking, provide a Kantian metaphysical deduction of his three categories, a non-Kantian deduction, traceable from his writings, clearly shows how the categories were con ceived in experience and logically deduced. See Hookway, Peirce, 81-88, and Gayle L. Ormiston, P eirces Categories: Structure of Semiotic, Semiotica 19 (1977): 209-231.

PAGE 110

101 the manifold of sensuous impressions to unity, and that the validity of a conception consists in the impossibility of reducing the content of consciousness to unity without the introduction of it.60 That groundwork was at the very core of one of Peirces most mature expressions of Pragmatism, the seven Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism.61 There, in conclusion to the seventh a nd last lecture, he stated, The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at th e gate of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and whatever cannot show its pa ssports at both those two gates is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason.62 In an undated manuscript, Peirce intr oduced the categories in the following way: Three ideas are basic: those of something, other and third In this mathematical proposition (for such it is shown to be), you have all logic and all metaphysics in a 60. CP 1.545. 61. Charles Sanders Peirce, Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism ed. Patricia Ann Turrisi (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997). Of these lectures, Peirce wrote to his former student, Christine Ladd-Franklin: In the Spring of 1903 I was invited, by the influence of James, Royce, and [Harvard psychologist Hugo] Mnsterberg, to give a course of lectures in Harvard University on Pragmatism. I had intended to print them; but James said he could not understand them himself and could not recommend their being printed. I do not myself think there is any difficulty in understanding them, bu t all modern psychologists are so soaked with sensationalism that they can not understand anything that does not mean that, and mistranslate into the ideas of Wundt whatever one says about logic. Chris tine Ladd Franklin, Charles S. Peirce at the Johns Hopkins, The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 13 (Dec. 21, 1916): 719-20. Given James lack of understanding, it is perhaps not insignificant that James was not in attendance for the second and either the sixth or sevent h lectures and read manuscripts of bo th, sent by Peirce, some time after they had been delivered. These were returned to Peirce on June 5th. James wrote to his brother, the novelist Henry James, Jr., on May 3rd, Charles Peirce is lecturing here queer being Boott (sic) is in good spirits, and a sociable as ever. George Santayana was present for the third lecture, and recalled the experience many years later: I hear d one of [Peirces] Harvard lectures. He had been dining at the Jamess and his evening shirt kept coming out of his evening waistcoat. He looked red-nosed and disheveled, and a part of his lecture seemed ex-tempore and whimsical. But I remember and have often used in my own thought, if not in actual writing, a classification he made that evening of signs into indexes and symbols and images: possibly there was still another distin ct category which I dont remember. Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life, 289-292. See also William James, The Letters of William James, 2 vols ed. Henry James (Boston: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1920), 2:191. 62. CP 5.212.

PAGE 111

102 nutshell.63 As Peirce sees it, these three a priori categories are ideas so broad that they may be looked upon rather as moods or tones of thought, than as defi nite notions [and] viewed as numerals, to be appl ied to what objects we like, th ey are indeed thin skeletons of thought, if not mere words.64 Still, as he expressed it to the Victorian semiotician, Lady Victoria Welby, once the categories occurr ed to him, they formed the organizing idea behind his subsequent work. I was long ago [1867] led, after only th ree or four years of study, to throw all ideas into the three classes of Firstness, of Secondness, and of Thirdness. This sort of notion is as distasteful to me as to anybody; and for years, I endeavored to pooh-pooh and refute it; but it long ago conquered me completely. Disagreeable as it is to attribute such meaning to numbers, and to a triad above all, it is as true as it is disagreeable.65 And in a Prolegomena for an Apology to Pragmatism he wrote: I cannot tell you with what earnes t and long continued toil I have repeatedly endeavored to convince myself that my notion that these three ideas [categories] are of f undamental importance in philosophy was a mere deformity of my individu al mind. It is impossible; the truth of the principle has ever r eappeared clearer and clearer.66 Until the end of his career, and not wit hout warrant, Peirce fretted about the pervasiveness of triads in his work as possible evidence of a disease he termed triadamy but not without irony was once prepared to call trichimania.67 A growing obsession with triads is clearly indicated in the latter thir d of his life when his philosophical interests shifted to evolutionary cosmology. In an incomplete manuscript of 1910, he took the time 63. MS 915, The Three Categories and the Reduction of Fourthness, quoted from Hans G. Herzberger, Peirces Remarkable Theorem, in Pragmatism and Purpose eds. L.W. Sumner, John G. Slater, and Fred Wilson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 41. 64. CP 1.355. 65. CP 8.328. 66. Charles S. Peirce, The New Elements of Mathematics, 4 vols. in 5, ed. Carolyn Eisele (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1976), 4:331. 67. CP 1.568. See also C.W. Spinks, Peirce and Triadomania (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991), 9n1.

PAGE 112

103 to outline The authors response to the anticipated suspicion that he attaches a superstitious or fanciful importance to the number three, and forces divisions to a Procrustean bed of trichotomy.68 For three pages his readers are cautioned against rushing to the conclusion that the author is a triadomaniac, notwithstanding the large number of trichotomies in the corpus of his work and at once are asked to consider two arguments for why he is not a victim of ide fixe. After all, Kant, the King of modern thought, it was who first remarked the frequency in logical analytics of trichotomics or threefold distinctions.69 For all of that, Peirce had to admit that while different numbers have been championed by others two by Pete r Ramus, four by the Pythagoreans, five by Sir Thomas Browne his own leaning wa s to the number three in philosophy. At one point he said In fact, I make so much use of threefold divisions in my speculations that it seems best to commence by making a slightly preliminary study of the conceptions upon which all such divisions must rest.70 However, his explana tion failed to dispel the suspicion that a commitment to psychological realism and an essentialist belief in the esoteric nature of triads allowed Peirce to find exactly what he was looking for in hairsplitting distinctions. Or, more frankly, in the words of Richard Rorty, there is nothing here to indicate Peirce was not j ust one more whacked-out triadomaniac.71 To my knowledge, Peirce never comp rehensively addressed how he came to think of his three categories. He di d, however, give a hint at how Kant was a catalyst. In 1905, Peirce radically revised his 1867 paper On a New List of Categories for inclusion in a 68. CP 1.568. 69. CP 1.369. 70. CP 1.355. 71. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope (London: The Penguin Group, 1999), 134.

PAGE 113

104 larger work that was never finished. In this paper he remembered As early as 1860, when I knew nothing of any German philosopher except Kant, who had been my revered master for three or four years, I was much st ruck with a certain indi cation that Kants list of categories might be a part of a larger system of conceptions.72 In my studies of Kants great Critic which I almost knew by heart, I was very much struck by the fact that, although, according to his own account of the matter, his whole philosophy rests upon his functions of judgment, or logical divisions of propositions, and upon the relation of his categories to them, yet his ex amination of them is most hasty, superficial, trivial, and even trifli ng, while throughout his works, replete as they are with evidences of logica l genius, there is manifest a most astounding ignorance of the traditio nal logic, even of the very Summul Logicales, the elementary schoolbook of the Plantagenet era.73 In this essay Peirce shared how he came to think the relationship between the two tables of Kants Transcendental Analytic in the First Critique the Func tion of Judgments and the Categories (A/70-B/95 and A/80-B/106 respectiv ely) comprised, as they are, of four sets of triads, might be flawed. For instance, the categories of re lation reaction, causality, and subsistence are so many different modes of necessity which is a category of modality; and in like manner, the categories of quality negation, qualification, degree, and intrinsic attribution are so many relations of inherence, which is a category of relation. Thus, as the categories of the third group are to th ose of the fourth, so are those of second to those of the third; and I fancied, at least, that the categories of quantity, unity, plurality, totality, were, in like manner, different intrinsic attributions of quality. Moreover, if I asked myself what was the difference between the three categories of quality, the answer I gave was that negation was a merely possible inherence, and intr insic attribution a necessary inherence; so that the categ ories of the second group are 72. CP 1.563. The 1867 paper had also been rewritten in 1893. This earlier revision is MS 403 in Richard Robins catalog of Peirces papers presen tly housed in the Houghton Library at Harvard University. See Richard Robin, Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce (University of Massachusetts Press, 1967). The 1893 version has been presented along side the 1867 original by Joseph Ransdell and is located at the Arisbe website: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/bycsp/ ms403/ms403.pdf (accessed August 2008). 73. CP 1.560.

PAGE 114

105 distinguished by means of those of the fourth; and in like manner, it seemed to me that to the question how the categories of quantity unity, plurality, totality differ, the answer should be that totality or system, is the intrinsic attribution which results from reactions, plurality that which results from causality, and unity that which results from inherence. This led me to ask, what are the con ceptions which are distinguished by negative unity, qual itative unity, and intrinsic unity? I also asked, what are the different kinds of necessity by which reaction, causality, and inherence are distinguish ed? I will not trouble the reader with my answers to these and similar questions Suffice it to say that I seemed to myself to be blinding groping among a deranged system of conceptions; and after trying to solve the puzzle in a direct speculative, a physical, a historical, and a psychological manner, I finally concluded the only way was to attack it as Kant had done from the side of formal logic.74 The logical process through which Peirce was able to reduce Kants twelve categories to three, and through which he came to the demonstrative certitude that there was something wrong about Kants formal logic,75 is outside the scope of the present work. Besides, as Murray Murphey points out, Peirce neglected to tell us precisely how the demonstrative certitude was reached.76 However, Peirce allowed: Even without Kants categories, the recurrence of triads in logic was quite marked, and must be the cr oppings out of some fundamental conceptions. I now undertook to ascerta in what the conceptions were. This search resulted in what I ca ll my categories. I then [1867] named them Quality, Relation, and Represen tation. But I was not then aware that undecomposable relations may n ecessarily require more subjects than two; for this reason Reaction is a better term [than Relation]. Moreover, I did not then know enough about language to see that to attempt to make the word representation serve for an idea so much more general than it habitually carri ed, was injudicious. The word mediation would be better. Quality, reac tion, and mediation will do. But for scientific terms, Firstness, S econdness, and Thirdness, are to be preferred as being entirely new wo rds without any false associations whatever.77 74. CP 1.563. 75. CP 4.2. 76. Murray G. Murphey, The Development of Peirces Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), 55. 77. CP 4.3.

PAGE 115

106 While Peirce employed a variety of methods for iterating the categories, he primarily made use of two. The first was phenomenological, by which he engaged the psychologist-phenomenologist Ja mes in a thought experiment.78 The second method was what he termed ideoscopic, which he used in correspondence with the semiotician, Lady Victoria Welby.79 Having read the second of the seven 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism from the manuscript Peirce had provided him, James returned it, with a copy of one of the other lectures, on June 5th, enclosing the following note. I have read the Second one [on the Categories] twice but so original, and your categories are so unusual to other minds, that although I recognize the region of thought and th e profundity and reality of the level on which you move, I do not yet as similate the various theses in the sense of being able to make us e of them for my own purposes. I may get it later; but at present event 1st, 2nd & 3rdness are outside my own sphere of practically applying things and I am not sure even whether I apprehend them as you mean them to be apprehended. I get, throughout your whole business, only the sense of something dazzling and imminent in the way of truth. This is very likely partly due to my mind being so non-mathematical and to my slight in terest in logic; but I am probably typical of a great many of your aud itors of the majority, so my complaint will be theirs You cannot start with too low an idea of their intelligence. Look at me as one!80 Peirce found James incapacity most vexing and he responded on June 8th in an attempt at elucidation. It rather annoys me to be told that there is anything novel in my three categories; for if they have not, however confusedly, been recognized by men since men began to think, that condemns them at once. To make them as distinct as it is in their na ture to be is, however, no small task 78. CP 8.266-269. 79. CP 8.328. 80. The Correspondence of William James, eds. Ignas K. Skrupskelis and Elizabeth M. Berkeley (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia), 10:257.

PAGE 116

107 But I am going to try to make here a brief statement that, I think, will do something for them. By the phenomenon I mean whatever is before our minds in any sense. The three categories are supposed to be the three kinds of elements that attentive perception can make out in the phenomenon.81 As Nathan Houser explains Here the categor ies appear as fundamental categories of experience (or consciousness): firstness is the monadic element of experience usually identified with feeling, secondness is the dya dic element identified with the sense of action and reaction, and thirdness is the triadic element iden tified with the sense of learning or mediation as in thought or semiosis.82 To illustrate, Peirce asked James to imagine the breakers on the seashore as indicating the character of secondness as involving effort All effort involves resistance and is hence, dyadic. All the actual character of consciousness is merely the sense of the shock of the non-ego upon us. Just as a calm sea sleeps except where its rollers dash upon the land.83 Secondness is a dyadic relation, indica ted in a two place predicate, e.g., X kills Y. It indicates the element of struggle, resistance, or irritation. It is brute fact or existence, the sense of otherness, actuality. If I ask you what the actuality of an event consists in, you will tell me that it consists in its happening then and there. The specifications then and there involve all its relations to other existents. The actuality of the event seems to lie in its relations to the universe of existents. A court may issue injunctions and judgments against me and I care not a snap of my finger for them. I may think them idle vapor. But when I feel the sheriffs hand on my shoulder, I shall begin to have a sense of actuality. Actuality is something brute. There is no reason in it. I instance putting your shoulder against a door and tr ying to force it open against an unseen, silent, and unknown resist ance. We have a two-sided consciousness of effort and resistan ce, which seems to me to come 81. CP 8.265. 82. Houser, introduction to The Essential Peirce, 1: xxxi. 83. CP 8.266.

PAGE 117

108 tolerably near to a pure sense of actuality. On the whole, I think we have here a mode of being of one thing which consists in how a second object is. I call that secondness.84 Next, Peirce beckons James to imagi ne that feeling retains its positive character but loses all relation, (and thereby all vividness, which is only the sense of shock).85 What remains is the mere sense of quality. Here Peirce employs a mental image he had used many times before. He points to a patch of red and to that element that makes red to be such as it is, whatever anything else may be.86 It is unmediated, neither individual nor general. Quality: is not anything which is dependent in its being, upon mind, whether in the form of sense or in that of thoug ht. Nor is it dependent, in its being, upon the fact that some material th ing possesses it. That quality is dependent upon sense is the great erro r of the conceptualists. A quality is a mere abstract potentiality and the error of thes e schools lies in holding that the potential, or possible, is not hing but what the actual makes it to be First that the quality of re d depends on anybody actually seeing it, so that red things are no longer red in the dark, is a denial of common sense The sensation is requisite fo r its apprehension; but no sensation nor sense-faculty is requisite for the possibility which is the being of the quality.87 Feeling, including sensation, is a monadic re lation represented by a one place predicate, e.g., X is red. It is represente d in quality, in the immediate, in the presentness of the present. Go out under the blue dome of heaven and look at what is present as it appears to the artists eye. The poetic mood approaches the state in which the present appears as it is pr esent. Is poetry so abstract and colorless? The present is just what it is regardless of the absent, 84. CP 1.24. 85. CP 8.267. 86. Ibid. 87. CP 1.422.

PAGE 118

109 regardless of past and future. It is such as it is, utterly ignoring anything else.88 What the world was to Adam on the day he opened his eyes to it, before he had drawn any distinctions, or had become conscious of his own existence that is first, present, immediate, fresh, new, initiative, original, spontaneous, free, vivid, conscious, and evanescent. Only, remember that every description of it must be false to it.89 Imagine me to make and in a slumberous condition to have a vague, unobjectified, still less subject ified, sense of redness, or of salt taste, or of an ache, or of grief or joy, or of a prolonged musical note. That would be, as nearly as possible, a purely monadic state of feeling.90 Thirdness, or the third element of the phenomenon, is that we perceive it to be a thing capable of being represented. We perceive it to be intelligible, that is, to be subject to law, or capable of being represented by a general sign or Symbol [and] whatever is capable of being represented is its elf of a representative nature.91 As such, Thirdness is a triadic relation, mediating between a firs t and a second, indicated by a three place predicate, e.g., A gives B to C. Whereas, fi rsts, being unreferred, ar e neither individual nor general, seconds are individu al and thirds are general. Thus it is, as Peirce proclaimed in his 1903 Harvard lectures that Thirdne ss pours in upon us through every avenue of sense, in our very perceptual judgments and all reasoning, so far as it depends on necessary reasoning, that is to say, mathem atical reasoning, turns upon the perception of generality and continuity at every step.92 Thirdness, for Peirce, has many aspects including generality, infinity, continuity, diffusion, growth, and intelligence.93 It is 88. CP 5.44. 89. CP 1.357. 90. CP 1.303. 91. CP 8.268. 92. CP 5.157, 5.150. 93. CP 1.340.

PAGE 119

110 also intelligibility, unive rsality, regularity, lawfulness, mediation, vagueness, representation, destiny, r easonableness and life.94 In an especially fertile passage on examples of Thirdness, Peirce claims that: Continuity represents Thirdness al most to perfection. Every process comes under that head. Moderation is a kind of Thirdness. The positive degree of an adjective is first, the superlativ e second, the comparative third. All exaggerated language, supre me, utter, matchless, root and branch, is the furn iture of minds which think of seconds and forget thirds. Action is second, but conduct is third. Law as an active force is second, but order and le gislation are third. Sympathy, flesh and blood, that by which I feel my neighbors feelings, is third.95 The suggestion that sympathy as he defines it, what might today be called the empathic response, though the term empathy has a shor t history, never appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary prior to 1930 is a third is especially rich. As we delve into Peirces theory of emotion we will begin to see th at as primarily a cognitivist, Peirce views particular emotions as judgments about something that is, as intentional in nature. Thus emotions, like thoughts, are thirds. Toward the end of a 1935 articl e Peirces Theory of Quality,96 Dewey shifted to the psychological identifications and de scriptions of the three categories. In this psychological universe of discourse, Quality (including sensations as barely had and not referred) repres ents feeling; Secondness represents existence as conative (since involving effort-resistance); and Thirdness, as cognitive thought represents rationality.97 As such, these psychological descriptions could, according to Dewey, be interpreted in two ways. One interpretati on, certainly harmonious with Peirces panpsychic 94. Rulon S. Wells, Thirdness and Linguistics, The Signifying Animal eds. Irmegard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980), 186, 199 and 200n1. 95. CP 1.337 (emphasis mine). 96. The Journal of Philosophy 32 (Dec. 19, 1935): 701-708. 97. Ibid., 707.

PAGE 120

111 predilections, would be to construe them as constituents in a grand cosmological scheme, comprised of hypostasized mathema tical relations isomorphic with three elements active in the universe chance, law, and habit-taking.98 That is the view, says Dewey, that apart from experience and phenomenology, the universe is constituted of something very like feelings and acts of ef fort-resistance, while natural continuity is inherently assimilable to what presents itself in experience as reflective thought.99 The second, far more modest, interpre tation of the psychologi cal descriptions of the three categories stands apart from metaphysics. Whether feelings, for example, are or are not constituents of the natural world, it can be affirmed that, psychologically it is through feeling (including sensation as such) that qualities present themselves in experience; that it is through volitional expe riences that existence, as a matter of action-reaction, is actualized in experience, and it is through thought that continuities are experienced This idea that feeling is the true psychical representative [see CP 5.44] of that immediacy of being which characterizes, according to Pe irce, everything in the natural world, is all that is essential to his th eory. The rest is supernumery; as he repeatedly says, with unusual frankness for a philosopher, it is a guess. If what is suggested is followed out, we do not define or identify quality in terms of feeling. The reverse is th e case. Anything that can be called a feeling is objectively defined by reference to immediate quality: anything that is a feeling, whether of red or of a noble character, or of King Lear, is of some immediate qua lity when that is present as experience.100 In what follows we will trace elements of both interpretations as they are presented in Peirces notions of instinct, emotion, and se ntiment and the roles th ese play in inquiry and action. I will take the position that for Pe irce these two interpre tations do not in any way bifurcate reality, that he felt, as he attempted to show in his 1887-88 essay, A Guess 98. Houser, introduction to A Guess at the Riddle, The Essential Peirce, 1:245. 99. Dewey, Peirces Theory of Quality, 707. 100. Ibid.

PAGE 121

112 at the Riddle, essentially an outline for a book he never fini shed, the categories were the foundation of an architectonic that revealed the universe in both its vastness and intricacy. The second method Peirce frequently us ed for iterating the categories was what he called ideoscopic. Its clearest articulation is found in a le tter to Lady Victoria Welby dated October 12, 1904.101 The term, like another he used in this letter, cenoscopic, was borrowed from Jeremy Bentham.102 Its meaning is clear from the following passage. Ideoscopy consists in describing and classifying the ideas that belong to ordinary experience or that naturally arise in connection with ordinary life, without regard to thei r being valid or invalid or to their psychology The ideas of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness are simple enough. Giving to being the broa dest possible sense, to include ideas as well as things, and ideas that we fancy we have just as much as ideas we do have, I should define Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness thus: Firstness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else. Secondness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. Thirdness is the mode of being of that which is such as it is, in bringing a second and a third in to relation to each other. I call these ideas the cenopythagorean categories.103 Here Peirce returned to thought experiment to illustrate his ideoscopic conclusions regarding firs tness and secondness. Imagine yourself to be seated alone at night in the basket of a balloon, far above the earth, calmly enjoying the absolute calm and stillness. 101. CP 8.328. 102. Paul Grimley Kuntz, Doing Something for the Categories, From Time and Chance to Consciousness: Studies in the Metaphysics of Charles Peirce, Papers from the Sesquicentennial Harvard Congress, eds. Edward C. Moore and Richard S. Robin (Oxford and Providence, USA: Berg Publishers, 1994), 195n3; see Jeremy Bentham, Chrestomathia and Chrestomathia, Part 2, introduced by Jeffrey Stern (1816, repr., Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press, 1994), Table V, 352-3. Bentham stipulated that Eudmonics or Ontology is divided between Coenoscopic (regarding properties or adjuncts common to all Beings) and Ideoscopic (regarding properties or ad juncts peculiar to different classes of Beings). 103. CP 8.328.

PAGE 122

113 Suddenly the piercing shriek of a steam-whistle breaks upon you, and continues for a good while. The impression of stillness was an idea of Firstness, a quality of feeling. The piercing whistle does not allow you to think or do anything but suffer. So that too is absolutely simple. Another Firstness. But the breaking of the silence by the noise was an experience. The person in his inertness identifies himself with the precedent state of feeling, and the new feeling which co mes in spite of him is the non-ego. That consciousness of the action of a new feeling in destroying the old feeling is what I call an experience. Experience generally is what the course of life has compelled me to think. Secondness is either genuine or degenerate There are many degrees of ge nuineness. Generally speaking genuine secondness consists in one thing acting upon another, brute action. I say brute, because so far as the idea of any law or reason comes in, Thirdness comes in.104 Revisiting his illustration of the sh rieking steam-whistle, now from the standpoint of a person in a room startled from a dreamy, half-awake state in which he was thinking of nothing but a pleasing color, Peirce turned to thirdness. [L]et us imagine that our now-awake ned dreamer, unable to shut out the piercing sound, jumps up and seek s to make his escape by the door, which we will suppose had been blown to with a bang just as the whistle commenced. But the instant our man opens the door, let us say the whistle ceases. Much relieved, he thinks he will return to his seat, and so shuts the door again. No sooner, however, has he done so than the whistle recommences. He asks himsel f whether the shutting of the door had anything to do with it; and once more opens the mysterious portal. As he opens it, the sound ceases. He is now in a third state of mind: he is Thinking That is, he is aware of lear ning, or going through a process by which a phenomenon is found to be governed by a rule, or has a general knowable way of behaving This third state of mind is entirely different from the other two. In th e second there was only a sense of brute force; now there is a sense of government by a general rule. In Reaction only two things are involved ; but in government there is a third thing which is a means to an end.105 The conception of Thirdness, i.e. the element in phenomena that allows us to see it as a thing capable of being represented, leads us to Peirces general theory of signs. The 104. CP 8.330. 105. MS 404 (1894), see Arisbe website: http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/ep/ep2/ep2book/ ch02/ep2ch2.htm (accessed August 2008).

PAGE 123

114 theory of signs arises from an analysis of conscious experience from the viewpoint of his three universal categories. Later in MS 404, in Peirce observed that: There are three kinds of interest we may take in a thing. First, we may have a primary interest in it for it self. Second, we may have a secondary interest in it, on account of its reactio ns with other things. Third, we may have a mediatory interest in it, in so far as it conveys to a mind an idea about a thing. In so far as it does this, it is a sign, or representation.106 As David Savan points out, it is in the 1867 essay, On a New List of Categories, that Peirce presents his triadic analysis of the sign as dependent upon his categories.107 C. Peirces General Theory of Signs In his article, Questions Concerning Certain Classificati ons Claimed for Signs, a play on Peirces leading essay in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy series of 1868, Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man, David Savan asks What is the relation of categories to signs? He begins by raising the question What is a sign? Peirce had many answers to that question, no fewer than seventy-six, in fact, as catalogued by Robert Marty and Alfred Lang.108 In the 1902 Baldwin Dictionary entry for Sign, contributed by Peirce, a sign is: Anything which determines something else (its interpretant ) to refer to an object to which itself refers (its object ) in the same way, the interpretant becoming in turn a sign, and so on ad infinitum .109 106. Ibid. 107. David Savan, Questions Concerning Certain Classifications Claimed for Signs, Semiotica 19 (1977): 180. 108. Definitions of The Sign by C.S. Peirce collected and analyzed by Robert Marty, Department of Mathematics, University of Perpignan, Perpignan, France, with an Appendix of 12 Further Definitions or Equivalents proposed by Alfred Lang, Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Switzerland. See the Arisbe website: http://www.cspeirce.com/ ; URL for the document is: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/libra ry/rsources/76defs/76defs.htm (accessed August 2008). 109. James Mark Baldwin, ed., Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology 3 vols. (New York: Peter Smith, 1940), 2:527.

PAGE 124

115 to It is clear that in Peirces mind, a sign has three references: A REPRESENTAMEN is a subject of a triadic relati on TO a Second, called its OBJECT, FOR a third, called its INTERPRETANT.110 His most common and generic wa y of stating it was to say that A sign, or representamen [sometimes representation], is something which stands somebody for something in some respect or capacity,111 or, as a very early formulation had it, A representation is something that stands for something to someone who so interprets it more precisely, to the interpretant, which that person forms in response to the sign and which is a second representation of the same thing.112 What each of these slightly different takes on the sign makes cl ear it that for Peirce a sign is any one of three relata sign, object, interpreta nt of a single, triadic relation.113 Those familiar with Peirce know that he was continuously revising his thoughts on signs. As he did that in several stages ove r many years often in letters or unfinished manuscripts what we now possess is little more than a sequence of contradictions, a series of ambitious yet unfinished sketches of elaborate but mutually incompatible structures.114 In 1907, after the investment of thir ty years, Peirce could only describe himself as a pioneer; or rather a backwoods man, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties 110. CP 1.541. 111. CP 2.228. 112. W 1:466; see T.L. Short, The Development of Peirces Theory of Signs, in The Cambridge Companion to Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 237n1, for a possible explanation of why Peirce spoke of interpretant s rather than interpretations; and Thomas L. Short, David Savans Peirce Studies, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (Spring 1986): 89-124; quote of Peirce on p. 98, on why an interpretant is not an interpreter: Instead, it is the particular thought, action, or feeling which interprets a sign. The formati on of interpretants constitutes an interpreter, which in some cases is a person. In MS 318 Peirce wrote: A sign without an interpreter has as an interpretant, a would-be, i.e., what would determine in the interpreter if there were one. 113. Short, The Development of Peirces Theory of Signs, in Misak, 214. 114. Ibid.

PAGE 125

116 of possible semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great for a first comer.115 Yet, his writings on signs cannot be ignored, because the se meiotic is the center from which most of Peirces thought radiates, and [t]he conception of the semeiotic triad is the central unity in Peirces philosophy, from beginning to end.116 Peirce himself put it this way: It has never been in my power to study anything mathematics, metaphysics, gravitation, thermodynamics, optics, chemistry, comparative anatomy, psychology, phonetics, economics, the history of science, whist, men and women, wine, metrology except as a study of semiotic.117 Moreover, his pragmatic theory of inquiry and his synechistic account of the mind are incomplete without it.118 The fragmentary state of his semiotic writings has, however, given Peirces critics a looming target and presented his interpre ters with a rather thorny hermeneutical problem. Rortys claim is that th e recent tendency to overly prai se Peirce is largely due to the unfinished but suggestive character of his sign theory. [T]he main reason for Peirces undeserv ed apotheosis is that his talk about a general theory of signs l ooks like an early discovery of the importance of language. For all his genius, however, Peirce never made up his mind what he wanted a general theory of signs for, nor what it might look like, nor what its relation to either logic or epistemology was supposed to be.119 115. CP 5.488. 116. David Savan, Peirce and Idealism, in Peirce and Contemporary Thought, ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner (New York: Fordham University Press, 1995), 315; and David Savan, The Unity of Peirces Thought, in Pragmatism and Purpose, eds. L.W. Sumner, John G. Slat er, and Fred Wilson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 10-11, respectively. 117. Charles S. Hardwick, ed., Semiotic and Significs: The Correspondence Between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), 85-6. 118. Short, The Development of Peirces Theory of Signs in Misak, 214. 119. Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), 161.

PAGE 126

117 at: While Rorty is correct in claiming that Pe irce never made up his mind about what the general theory of signs might finally look like, he did know ex actly what he wanted it for, how logic as a species of semiotic related to it,120 and how it related to the ultimate goal of outlining a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology, in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in whatever other department there might be, shall appear as the fi lling up of its details.121 It was this vision that consumed his last years. His biographer, Joseph Brent noted th Despite his steadily declining h ealth and increasingly undependable mind, Peirce continued until the last few weeks of his life to work doggedly and surprisingly fruitfully on his great undert aking, now called a system of logic defined as formal semeiotic. This dry description meant far more than a change in name. Between about 1900 and 1912, Peirce transfigured his entire architectonic on the basis of a transcendental doctrine of signs th at had been in kernel in 1867.122 Our interest here is, of course, much narrowe r in scope, specifically the relation of sign theory to instinct, sentiments and the emotions. However, even here, at the level of the affective, in the unity of thought and f eeling, in the relation between science and sentiment, in the understanding of instinct and abduction, the devel opment of the theory of signs is salient. The hermeneutical problem arises in the philological task of reconstructing what the general theory of signs might have looke d like had Peirce settled on its final form. The natural tendency of interpreters is to work backward from what is often rendered as 120. CP 1.444, 4.9, 8.377. 121. CP 1.1. 122. Joseph Brent, Charles Peirce: A Life (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991).

PAGE 127

118 the mature work that occurred after 1906. Short says that To speak of this mature theory at all [however] is to speak hypothetically: It has to be construed from the surviving manuscripts of Peirces last years plus all that is co nsistent with them from his earlier writings.123 The work is highly speculative As Umberto Eco notes, lacking a final iteration upon which to account for the stages of a supposed development, the interpreter must extrapolate what represents the authentic theory and what is a mere abortive deviation.124 Efforts to impose coherence by extraction of an essential kernel from the extraneous chaff tend, for Eco, to resu lt more in Peircist interpretations than a Peircean reconstruction. At just such a risk and for the sake of brevity, we turn now to a thumbnail sketch of the theory. We should begin with a note on spelling. For sign-action, the operation or function of a sign, si gn-interpretation, or the ac t of inferring from signs he uses two English forms, semiosis and semeiosy For the art or science or doctrine or general theory of semioses [Peirce] uses semeiotic ; much less often, semeiotics or semiotic, very rarely, semeotic ; never semiotics.125 For the balance of this work, in quoting, I shall adopt whatever spelli ng is used in the orig inal and outside of quotations I shall use the more common semiotic. We began this discussion by raising David Savans question, What is the relation of categories to signs? As fundamental to all being, pot ential or actu al, the three 123. Short, The Development of Peirces Theory of Signs, in Misak, 214 124. Umberto Eco, Peirces Notion of Interpretant, Modern Language Notes 91, Comparative Literature (Dec. 1976): 1457-1472. 125. Max H. Fisch, Peirces General Theory of Signs, in Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch, eds. Kenneth Laine Ketner and Christian J. W. Kloesel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 322.

PAGE 128

119 irreducible categories impose a tr iadic structure upon all signs.126 The sign relation is fundamentally triadic: eliminate either the object or the interpretant and you annihilate the sign.127 Thus it can be said that: [T]he cenopythagorean cat egories are the structure on which Peirce built his theory of signs. Following his inquiry from the Kantian categories into his own deduction one can see how each category is dependent on and determined by the preceding categories. And, in so doing, Peirce shows how the categories function in their limited capacities, that of drawi ng attention to certain general characteristics within phenomena. The categories ar e the skeletons of thought (1.355) and, as the skeleton of thought they offer or suggest a way of thinking, a perspective to look at the picture.128 More importantly, beyond merely imposing a structure on the theory of signs, Savan responds to his own question by arguing that Peirces categories are themselves signs. When Peirce writes that being and cognizable are synonymous he is saying that being and representable are synonymous.129 For our immediate purposes, the general theory of signs can be roughly summarized as follows. From three fundamental kinds of rela tions monadic, dyadic, and triadic there are three mathematical relations first, second and third or, via hypostatic abstraction, Firstness (a monad or quality), Secondness (a dyad or relation ), and Thirdness (a triad or representation or mediation). A sign, as that which stands for something (its object) to something (its interpretant), has two objects: a dynamic object, the object in itself, and 126. For a thorough discussion and formal demonstration of Peirces reduction thesis, whereby all quadruple or higher relations are reducible to triads and no further reduction is possible, see Hans G. Herzberger, Peirces Remarkable Theorem, in eds. Sumner, Slater and Wilson, Pragmatism and Purpose (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981), 41-59; and CP 3.144, 3.317, 1.345-7; MS 482, 439. 127. Houser, Introduction to the Essential Peirce 1:xxxvi. 128. Gayle L. Ormiston, Peirces Categories: Structure of Semiotic, 224. 129. David Savan, Questions Concerning Certain Classifications Claimed for Signs, Semiotica 19 (1977): 183; the reference in Peirces writing is to CP 5.257 from the second essay of the 1868 Cognition Series.

PAGE 129

120 an immediate object, the objec t as the sign represents it.130 Helmut Pape explains that The immediate object is internal to the sign just the idea of an object to which the sign gives rise to. The dynamical object is the external object of the sign, an intersubjective item that different people at different times locate in their experience as the same object that these people have experienced before.131 To illustrate Peirce says: It is a stormy day. Here is [a] sign. Its Immediate Object is the the notion of the present weather so far as this is common to her mind and mine not the character of it, but the identity of it. The Dynamical Object is the identity of the actual or Real Me teorological conditions at the moment.132 Additionally, every sign ha s three interpretants: a final interpretant, the effect that would be produced on the mind by the sign after suffi cient development of thought, a dynamic interpretant, the effect actu ally produced on the mind, a nd an immediate interpretant, the interpretant represente d or signified in the sign.133 Returning to the example of the stormy day, Peirce says: The Immediate Interpretant is the schema in her imagination, i.e. the vague Image or what there is in co mmon to the different Images of a stormy day. The Dynamical Interpretant is the disappointment or whatever actual effect it at once ha s upon her. The final interpretant is the sum of the Lessons of the reply, Moral, Scientific, etc.134 Using Peirces own words, Jay Zeman very effectively summarizes the distinction between the immediate and dynami cal in the following way: the Immediate Object is the obj ect as the Sign itself represents it, [making its] Being dependent on the Representation of it in the Sign 130. CP 4.536 and 8.343. 131. Helmut Pape, Charles S. Peirce on Objects of Thought and Representation, Nos 24 (June, 1990): 382. 132. CP 8.314. 133. CP 8.343. 134. CP 8.314.

PAGE 130

121 ; the Immediate Interpretant is the interpretant as it is revealed in the right understanding of the sign itself.135 Immediate is contrasted to dynamical: the Dynamical Object is the Reality which by some means contrives to determine the sign to its Representation. the Dynamical Interpretant is the actual effect which the sign as sign really determines.136 So far as interpretants are concerned, Peirce speaks of a final interpretant as well as an immediate and a dynamical: the Final Interpretant refers to the manner in which a Sign tends to represent itself to be related to its object. He goes on, I confess that my own c onception of this third interpretant is not yet quite free from mist. Thanks.137 Elsewhere, as if to turn the mist to fog, Peirce uses another trichotomy of interpretants, that of the emotional interpreta nt (a feeling), the energetic interpretant (an action), and the logical interpretant (a thought).138 This second trichotomy has been the source of considerable controversy over wh ether it is to be understood as synonymous with the first division or as representative of a new departure. Among the Peirce scholars who believed the trichotomies are synonymous are Paul Weiss and Arthur Burks, Thomas Goudge, James Feibleman, Justus Buchler, Manley Thompson, and Douglas Greenlee.139 A second group of interpreters, represented by Thomas L. Short and Jay 135. CP 4.536. 136. Ibid. 137. J. Jay Zeman, The Esthetic Sign in Peirces Semiotic, Semiotica 19 (1977): 246. 138. CP 5.475, 5.486; in a letter to the author, Thomas L. Short said, If you look at Peirces Logic Notebook ( MS 339) in years 1903 onward you will find so many different versions of the interpretants that every consistent account of them must be contradicted in one passage or another. 139. See Paul Weiss and Arthur Burks, Peirces Sixty-Six Signs, Journal of Philosophy 42 (July 5, 1945): 383-8, esp. 386; Thomas A. Goudge, The Thought of C.S. Peirce (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press,1950),154-5; James Feibleman, An Introduction to Peirces Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946),133; Justus Buchler, Charles Peirces Empiricism (London: Kegan Paul, Trench,

PAGE 131

122 Zeman, believe that the two trichotomies are ve ry different but do not compete or conflict with one another.140 James Jakb Liszka holds that the the two trichotomies of intepretants co-exist not me rely synonymously but have a complementary relationship.141 Finally, John J. Fitzgerald and Brandon La lor are two scholars who contend that the emotional/energetic/logical tric hotomy is merely a special case of either the dynamical (Fitzgerald) or the immediat e/dynamic/final trichotomy.142 I will follow Lalors lead in holding that the emotional/energetic and logical classification of 1906 is a special case of the immediate/dynamical/final trichotomy of 1909 as it reflects the concrete human expe rience of semiosis while the latter characterizes semiosis more generally. In spit e of Thomas L. Shorts contention that the two trichotomies, defined on di fferent principles, thus inte rsect without being identical, he is forced to admit that Peirce continued re vision of his work on interpretants until the end of his career and th at as late as 1907, in MS 318, the two trichotomies are identified with one another.143 While Lalor is left to explain how the trichotomy of 1906 could be a special case of one not fully developed for th ree more years, he poi nts out that Peirces work on the subject was in a more or less cons tant state of flux, that there were several Trubner & Co., 1939), 19, 104n1, 162n1; Manley Thompson, The Pragmatic Philosophy of C.S. Peirce (Chicago: The University of Chicago Pre ss, 1952), 295n19; and Douglas Greenlee, Peirces Concept of Sign (The Hague: Mouton,1973), 117n8. 140. Thomas L. Short, Semiosis and Intentionality, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 17 (Summer 1981): 212-19; Thomas L. Short, Life Among the Legisigns, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 18 (Fall 1982): 287ff; J. Jay Zeman, The Esthetic Sign in Peirces Semiotic, Semiotica 19 (1977): 246ff. 141. James Jakb Liszka, Peirces Interpretant, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 26 (Winter 1990): 17-62. 142. John J. Fitzgerald, Peirces Theory of Signs as Foundation for Pragmatism (The Hague & Paris: Mouton & Company, 1966), 78ff; Brandon Lalor, The Classification of Peirces Interpretants, Semiotica 114 (1997): 31-40. 143. Thomas L. Short, Life Among the Legisigns, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 18 (Fall 1982): 288, 306n2.

PAGE 132

123 other terminologies employed between 1893 and 1904, that as late as 1909 Peirce was writing to Welby of his gropings after the three kinds of interpretant , that even in MS 318 when both trichotomies are mentioned togeth er, it is ostensibly to identify rather than distinguish them, and that nowhere does Peirce claim they are distinct.144 Lalors interpretation gains us two things. First, the emotional/energetic/logical trichotomy, as a special case of the more abstract immediate/dynamic/final classificati on, provides a vehicle for the examination of feeling as manifested in psychological identif ications, in human experiences of emotion, instinct and sentiment and, at the same time, as reflected in the grand scheme of Peirces panpsychical metaphysics. In this we are able to account for Peirces synechism, i.e. his theory of continuity and account of evolution, and his view of instinct as instrumental in accounting for both the success of scientific hypothesis and the source of the summum bonum .145 From this we are able to tra ce what Peirce referred to as his Ideal-Realism a view containing elements of both idealism and r ealism, attributed to his father as the opinion that nature and the mind have such a community as to impart to our guesses a tendency toward the truth, while at the sa me time they require the confirmation of empirical science.146 Klaus Oehler argues that because he retained language common to the controversy between idealism and realism that marked much of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it is easy to miss the fact that the theory of thought-signs, that Peirce advanced in 1868-9, is a first step in the attempt at overcoming the false 144. Brandon Lalor, The Classification of Peirces Interpretants, Semiotica 114 (1997): 40n6. 145. Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life 344. 146. The Century Dictionary Online, 12 vols. (1889), for Ideal-Realism by Charles Sanders Peirce 4:2974; see http://www.global-language.com/CENTURY/ (accessed August 2008).

PAGE 133

124 infinitum It was a flaw that was not resolved until 1907 when Peirce conceded that every interpretant of a thought-sign need not be a nother thought-sign in an infinite series. In 1907, Peirce reversed himself by drawing a dis tinction within the category of logical interpretants between those that are signs a nd those that are not. The latter he named alternatives of that protr acted and unproductive debate over the question of reality whether, on the one hand, the object of experi ence stands outside of consciousness or, on the other hand, is a pr oduct of consciousness.147 The essence of Peirces argument is that thought can only be cogni zed by external facts. If we seek the light of external facts, the only cases of thought which we can find are of thought in signs. Plainly, no other thought can be evidenced by external facts. But we have seen that only by external facts can thought be known at all. The on ly thought, then, which can possibly be cognized is thought in signs. Bu t thought which cannot be cognized does not exist. All thought, therefore, must necessarily be in signs.148 Because all thought is in signs, by nature all signs refer to each other. Since meaning cannot be located in any thought-sign, it must be found in the very process by which one thought interprets another.149 This very premise, however, revealed a fatal flaw in the early theory of signs Short notes that: [Peirce] supposed that significance depends on interpretation, but then explained interpretation as consistin g in signs. Thus, the problem of accounting for significance is not solv ed but merely handed on, from one sign to the next. Nor does it matter that the process of interpretation continues ad infinitum. That merely postpones an answer ad 150 147. Klaus Oehler, Peirces Foundation of a Semiotic Theory of Cognition, in Peirce Studies: A Symposium by Members of the Institute for Studies in Pragmatism, no. 1 (Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press, 1979), 70f. 148. CP 5.251. 149. Short, The Development of Peirces Theory of Signs, 217. 150. Ibid.

PAGE 134

125 ultimate logical interpretants.151 The ultimate logical interpre tant of a sign is a habit of conduct. To say that I hold that the import, or adequate ultimate interpretation, of a concept is contained, not in any deed or deeds that will ever be done, but in a habit of conduct, or genera l moral determination of whatever procedure there may come to be, is no more than to say that I am a pragmaticist. Now every animal must have habits. Consequently, it must have innate habits. Insofar as it has cognitive powers, it must have in posse innate cognitive habits, which is all that anybody but John Locke ever meant by innate ideas.152 The notion of such habits of conduct, covering all cases of the subjunctive as general, is at the core of Peirces later pragmatism, wh at he came to call pragmaticism, and extends to qualities of feeling. Among phanerons there are certain quali ties of feeling, such as the the color of magenta, the od or of attar, the sound of a railway whistle, the taste of quinine, the quality of the emotion upon contemplating a fine mathematical demonstration, the quality of feeling of love, etc. I do not mean the sense of actually experiencing these feelings, whether primarily or in any memory or imagination But I mean the qualities themselves which, in themselves, ar e mere may-bes, not necessarily realized.153 The existence of ultimate interpretants gives rise to the question of just how general Peirces theory of signs trul y is. The quick answer to th e question is to present the distinction between token and type, sometimes termed the distinction between replica and legisign,154 first introduced by Peirce in The Monist in1906 and later adopted by, among others, Davidson.155 In his 1923 review of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus for Mind 151. Ibid., 227. 152. CP 5.504. 153. CP 1.304. 154. CP 2.246. 155. The Monist 16 (1906): 494-546; and especially CP 4.537; see Don Davidson, Mental Events, in Materialism and the Mind-Body Problem ed. David M. Rosenthal, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2000), 232-248.

PAGE 135

126 Frank Ramsey suggested that a fuller understa nding of certain aspects of Wittgensteins work could be gained from the introduc tion of Peirces t ype-token distinction.156 To illustrate, Peirce noted that there is but one definite article in the English language but that any printed page will contain a dozen in stances. The one is the type to which the twelve are the tokens. [T]he types are signs in a prior and preeminent sense; they confer signhood on their tokens.157 Thus the ultimate interpretant as a habit is also, as a type, a sign, not merely as a constituent part of a co mpound as any interpretant would be a sign, but as any other type, bestowing signhood upon its tokens. The second thing gained by accepting the emotional/energetic/logical trichotomy as a special instance of the immediate/dynamic/final classi fication of interpretants, viewing the former as standing in relation to the latter as species to genus, is the hedge it affords Peirce against the danger of psychologism that he feared was lurking behind all attempts to relate semiosis to human experience. Peirce hoped to be able to generali ze the conclusions reached from our human point of view, to charac terize semiosis universally. He recognized that to do so unprovisiona lly would be to base a proposition of logic on a proposition of psychol ogy. Thus, he stressed that the soundness of the generalization is conditional on the truth of the assumed analogy between modificati ons of human consciousness and interpretants in general. In this li ght, it should be no surprise that his 1906 classification of the interpretants as emotional, energetic, and logical, reflects an anthropomorphic way of looking at semiosis. The 1909 trichotomy lays down a general structural pattern which Peirce believed can be found in all kinds of semiosis.158 Peirce was keenly sensitive to the hints of ps ychologism that were evidenced in his early work, in particular his use of the sensations of belief and doubt in the first founding of 156. F.P. Ramsey, Review, Mind 32 (October, 1923): 468. 157. Fisch, Just How General Is Peirces General Theory of Signs? in Ketner and Kloesel, 357. 158. Lalor, The Classification of Peirces Interpretants, 7-8.

PAGE 136

127 pragmatism in the Illustrati ons of the Logic of Science series of articles and did his utmost to expunge any such suggesti ons from subsequent formulations.159 One strategy for overcoming any tendency toward psyc hologism was, as Max Fisch points out, Peirces insistence on the differen ce between thinking and thought. Early and late, Peirce made fre quent and wide-ranging use of the distinction between thinking and thought. Thinking is a matter for psychology, thought for logic. Thought is type; thinking is token.160 We will return to the issue of psychologism in subsequent chapters. With respect to the subject of th is dissertation, a final remark on the special relationship of meaning to the emotional interpre tant is in order before we turn to other aspects of the general theory of signs. Peirce s clearest statement on this relationship was published in 1907 in the Popular Science Monthly. Now the problem of what the meaning of an intellectual concept is can only be solved by the study of the in terpretants, or proper significate effects, of signs. These we find to be of three general classes with some important subdivisions. The first proper significate effect of a sign is a feeling produced by it. There is almost always a feeling which we come to interpret as evidence that we co mprehend the proper effect of the sign, although the foundation of truth in this is very slight. This emotional interpretant, as I call it, may amount to much more than that feeling of recognition; and in some cases, it is the only proper significate effect that the sign produces. Thus, the performance of a piece of concerted music is a sign. It conveys, and is intended to convey, the composers musical ideas; but these usually consist merely in a series of feelings.161 159. This series was comprised of five essays, the first two of which articulated the salient features of pragmatism. These were The Fixation of Belief, Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877): 1-15; and How to Make Our Ideas Clear, Popular Science Monthly 12 (January 1878): 286-302. Karl-Otto Apel refers to these essays as the two birth certificates of Peirces Pr agmatism. Karl-Otto Apel, Charles S. Peirce: From Pragmatism to Pragmaticism, trans. John Michael Krois (Highlands,New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1981), 177. 160. Fisch, Just How General Is Peirces General Theory of Signs? 360. 161. CP 5.475.

PAGE 137

128 By his own admission, Peirce had terribly negl ected the study of aesthetics, which he nevertheless believed to be a science foundational to logic. it is generally said that the three normative sciences are logic, ethics, and esthetics, being the three doctr ines that distinguish good and bad; Logic in regard to representations of truth, Ethics in regard to efforts of will, and Esthetics in objects considered simply in their presentation. Now that third normative science [i.e. esthetics] can, I think, be no other than that which I have described. It is evidently the basic normative science upon which as a foundation, the doctrine of ethics must be reared to be surmounted in its turn by the doctrine of logic.162 For Peirce, the normative sciences, represen ting the second grand division of philosophy after phenomenology, examine the relation of phenomena to ends. Logic, as selfcontrolled thought, dir ected at the good end of representing something, depends upon ethics for the principle of self-control. Ethics as self-regulated acti on directed at the good end of action, depends upon aesth etics for its notion of the summum bonum Aesthetics, concerned with beauty and directed at the good end of feelings, is foundational. In this way, aesthetics is a first, ethi cs a second, and logic a third.163 The esthetic sign, while largely undeveloped by Peirce, repr esents the category of feeling as experience, i.e., at its most immediate contact with the object. Peirce draws his example of the emotional interpretant from the esthetic expe rience of music. Jay Zeman explains: An anecdote told of Schubert (whether apocryphal or not) illustrates the key role of the immediate, and so of the emotional interpretant, in esthetic experience. The composer had played one of his pieces on the piano, and afterwards was asked by a lady who had been listening, Oh, Maestro, what does it mean? Whereupon he sat back down at the pianoforte and played the composition again. Any answer to her question other than the providing of the immediate experience of the music would have missed the point, fo r the point was found precisely in 162. CP 5.36. 163. MS 312; published in CP 5.120-150, the fifth of the Harvard lectures, delivered April 30, 1903.

PAGE 138

129 e avid Savan notes: the ineffable immediacy of the expe rience in the Peircean emotional interpretant which was its effect. Esthetic experience may be the locus where the emotional interpretant is most easily recognized, but this interpretant is by no means restricted to experience in the arts. Rather, it is an element of experience in gene ral; in fact, If a sign produces any further proper significate effect [b eyond the emotional interpretant], it will do so through the mediation of the emotional interpretant.164 We turn now to further divisions in the theory of signs that are necessary for understanding Peirces treatment of instinct emotion, and sentiment. First, Peirce sometimes spoke of the ground of a sign. For instance: A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacit y. It addresses some body, that is, it creates in the mind of th at person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in referen ce to a sort of idea, which I have sometimes called the ground of the representation.165 Hartshorne and Weiss date this unidentifie d fragment from around 1897. Peirces use of ground was rare and, according to Thomas L. Short, the cited passage is the only instance in which it was employed after 1867 and thereby only to refer to earlier views.166 As such, the ground is not a feature of the sign in the same way as the three relata of sign (or representamen), object and interpretant but rather a device for identifying the nature of the particular sign or explaining how the sign picks out its objects.167 In 1867, Peirce explained the ground as being the common characters of [th signs] objects, or its connotation.168 As D 164. J. Jay Zeman, Peirces Theory of Signs, in A Perfusion of Signs, ed. Thomas Sebeok (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), 32. 165. CP 2.228. 166. Thomas L. Short, David Savans Peirce Studies, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (1986): 99. 167. Ibid.; see also Houser, introduction to The Essential Peirce, 1:xxxvii. 168. CP 1.559.

PAGE 139

130 [J]ust as a predicate may be said to refer to some character, say being white, through which it refers to some correlated object, say the thing that is white, so Peirce says that every sign is a reference to a ground. A ground is an abstraction, like redness or squareness, color or shape. That which is concrete, is limited in its spatio-temporal existence, and is referred to such an abst ract ground, Peirce calls a quale.169 From this standpoint, a sign will be either a quality (a qualisign CP 2.244), an existent thing or ev ent (a sinsign CP 2.245) or a law or habit (a legisign CP 2.246).170 This first of three further trichotom ic divisions, comprised of the qualisign, sinsign, and legisign, views the sign as it is in itself, i.e., the relatum in the triadic sign relationship designated as the si gn or the representamen. In a re turn to one of his favorite illustrations, Peirce explains the trichotomy. A sign is either of the nature of an appearance, when I call it a qualisign or secondly, it is an individual ob ject or event, when Icall it a sinsign (the syllable sin being the first syllable of semel, simul, singular, etc.); or thirdly, it is of the nature of a general type, when I call it a legisign [from the Latin Lex ]. As we use the term word in most cases, saying that the is one word and an is a second word, a word is a legisign. But when we say of a page that it has 250 words upon it, of which twenty are thes, the word is a sinsign. A sinsign so embodying a legisign, I term a replica of the legisign The qualisign, on the other hand, has no identity. It is the mere quality of an appearance and is not exactly the same throughout a sec ond. Instead of identity, it has great similarity, and cannot differ much without being calle d quite another qualisign.171 169. David Savan, Questions Concerning Certain Classifications Claimed for Signs, Semiotica 19 (1977): 181. 170. Houser, introduction to The Essential Peirce 1:xxxvii. 171. CP 8.334.

PAGE 140

131 Qualisigns, as firsts, are the most abstract of the three. Qualisigns do not operate as signs until incarnate in an object but the actualizat ion has nothing to do with their identity as signs.172 Until embodied, they are mere possibilities. Another division of signs involves the sign considered in relation to its dynamical object. This division, by far the most developed by Peirce, is the division of signs into icons, indices, and symbols. Icons, or likenesses, represent by bearing a resemblance to the object. They represent simply thro ugh imitation. Examples of icons include photographs, especially instant pho tos, a design an artist draws of a statue, architectural elevations, imitative gestures and sounds, hierog lyphics, a painted port rait, an historical novel, or a theatrical performance.173 An icon has no dynamical connection with the object it represents; it simply happens that its qualities resemble thos e of that object, and excite analogous sensations in the mind for which it is a likeness.174 Indices, on the other hand, represent by being physically or ca usally connected to the object, representing and making an organic pair. Or, in another wa y Peirce stated it around 1903, an index is a sign which refers to the Object it denotes by virtue of being really affected by that Object.175 Examples of indices incl ude a weather vane, a plumb line, measles spots, temperature readings, bi llowing smoke, exclamations of pain, a bullet hole, lightning, the pole star, a scream for help, cartoons, footprints, a pointing index finger. As we will see, Peirce believed indices, like icons, are natural signs, and thus 172. Michael Hoffmann, The 1903 Classification of Triadic Sign-Relations, Digital Encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce, ed. Joo Qeuiro s, So Paulo (PUC), locat ed at the Peirce Digital Encyclopedia, see http://www.digitalpeirce.fee.unicamp.br/home.htm (accessed August 2008). 173. MS 404; published in part in CP 2.281, 285, 297-302; see also Peter Skagestad, Peirces Semeiotic Model of the Mind, in The Cambridge Companion to Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 246. 174. CP 2.299. 175. CP 2.248.

PAGE 141

132 signify regardless of whether an interpreter is present. [ Indices] brutely direct the eyeballs of the interpreter to the object in question.176 The index forces the attention to the particular object in tended without describing it.177 The index like a pointing finger exercises a real physiological force over the attention, like the power of a mesmerizer, and directs it to a particular object of sense.178 However, as Wittgenstein effectively demonstrated, one could imagin e a person [who] naturally reacted to the gesture of pointing with the hand by looking in the direction of the line from finger-tip to wrist, not from wrist to finger-tip.179 Swelling, pain, redness and heat are indices of inflammation in a body. Indices furnish pos itive assurance of the reality and the nearness of their objects.180 Thus, a map of a particular place, a guidepost, or a fence may be an index. A sundial or a clock is an index of the time of da y. A man with a rolling gait may be a probable indication that he is a sailor just as a bowlegged man in gaiters and a jacket may be the probable indication th at he is a jockey. Moreover, letters of a geometrician on parts of a diagram indicate that part. A rap on the door, a thunderbolt, anything which startles us is an indication, in so far as it marks the junction between two portions of experience.181 Icons and indices, as distinguished from instituted or conventional signs or symbols, are natural signs. As such, Max Fisch points out, they need not be thought of as having an utterer. We may therefore drop the utterer from the general model in terms of which we construct our 176. CP 8.350. 177. CP 1.369. 178. CP 8.41. 179. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed., trans. G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 185. 180. CP 4.531. 181. CP 2.285.

PAGE 142

133 definition of a sign. And a sign doe s not cease to be a sign when no interpreter is present. So we may drop the interpreter also from our definition.182 Thus we are able to refer to the interpretant rather than an interpreter because a natural sign is a sign regardless of its being interpreted as a sign.183 Icons rest on likeness and indices rest on association by contiguity.184 Neither hinge upon a rational animal for their signification. Symbols, apart from being mark ed by the social or conventional, are distinguished from icons and indices negativ ely, that is, conceived as signs that are neither icons nor indices.185 There may be a mere relation of reason between the sign and the thing signified; in that case, the sign is an icon. Or, there may be a direct physical connection; in that case, the sign is an index Or there may be a relation which consists in the fact that the mind associates the sign with its object; in that case the sign is a name [or symbol ].186 As such, symbols, unlike icons a nd indices, possess generality. A symbol is a representamen whose special significance or fitness to represent just what it does represent lies in nothing but the very fact of there being a habit, disposition, or other effective general rule that it will be so interpreted.187 Symbols, or general signs, are associated with their meanings by custom or usage and, as such, most words, phrases, speeches, books, and libraries would be symbol s. After tracing symbol as etymologically derived from (embolum) as a thing thrown into something or, in the case of the 182. Fisch, Just How General Is Peirces General Theory of Signs? 359. 183. CP 4.447. 184. Thomas Sebeok, Indexicality, in Peirce and Contemporary Thought ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner (New York: Fordham Press, 1995), 226. 185. CP 1.372, 4.447. 186. CP 1.372. 187. CP 4.447.

PAGE 143

134 symbol, thrown together ( ) as in a contract or c onvention, Peirce lists other examples as a watch fire, a badge, a church creed, a ticket or a ch eck, and, intriguingly, any expression of sentiment. Finally, almost any common word such as give, bird, or marriage is a symbol to the extent that the idea of each is connected with the word that in no case shows us an actual bi rd, or a marriage or a giving.188 Yet another division of signs involves the relation of the inte rpretant to the sign and how it represents a sign as a rhema (word in Greek), dici (alluding to judgment or proposition) or, as a ch ain of propositions, an argument Peirces fullest expression of his general theory of signs contai ns a total of ten classificati ons or trichotomies, which, if they proved to be independent of one another by his own reckoning, highly improbable would result in 59,049 different kinds of signs.189 The ones we have covered will suffice in our attempt at accounting for Peirce s treatment of emotion and sentiment. Before moving on to the semiotic theory of emotion, a couple of points are in order. On the whole, Peirces work in se miotics has been lauded as pioneering and suggestive while at the same time much of it remains not only incomplete but unintelligible, contradictory and fruitless. The th eory has its critics but none as incisive as Yale Universitys Rulon S. Wells, who in five essays raises several issues often overlooked by those who enthusiastically e ndorse Peirces groundbreaking work, issues we do well to acknowledge to the extent that his treatment of emotion, like so much of 188. CP 2.297. 189. CP 1.291.

PAGE 144

135 his work, hinged on his categories and semiotic.190 Three of these criticisms are especially pertinent to Peirces treatm ent of emotion, sentiment and instinct. First, Wells points out that Peirce confines his treatment of semiotic almost exclusively to human animals and to intellect ual activity. As such, Pe irce can be called a cognitivist, if, in following David Savans lead, we mean by cognitivism in emotion theory the denial that emotions are feeling or natural behavior, a nd the assertion that emotions are identical with cognitive or evaluative judgments or with words and concepts that figure in cognitive or evaluative judgments.191 There is no doubt, as we will demonstrate in the next section, that Peirce was every bit a cognitivist in this sense, to the extent he affirmed that emotions are judgm ents. However, as Wells contends, there are plenty of passages, both published and unpublished, in which Peirce appears to be taking the contrary position, that along side of wanting a cognitivist ic semiotics that treats judgment as the paradigm of semiosis, he also wants a semiotics which applies in a natural way to behavior, brute and human, and to human experiences that are not obviously cognitive.192 Peirces various treatments of in stinct and emotion provide both a glaring example of a vexing ambivalence in his psyc hology and a window into his evolutionism. 180. The essays are, in chronological order, The True Nature of Peirces Evolutionism, in Studies in the Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce 2nd series, eds. Edward C. Moore and Richard S. Robin (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1964); Distinctively Human Semiotic, in Essays in Semiotics eds. Julia Kristeva, Josette Rey-Debove, and Donna J. Umiker (The Hague: Mouton Press, 1971); Criteria for Semiosis, in A Perfusion of Signs ed. Thomas Sebeok (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1977); Peirces Notion of the Symbol, Semiotica 19 (1977): 197-208; and Thirdness and Linguistics, in The Signifying Animal, eds. Imenegard Rausch and Gerald F. Carr (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1980). 191. David Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, in Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch and Charles S. Hardwick (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1981), 320. 192. Wells, Peirces Notion of Symbol, 198.

PAGE 145

136 Elsewhere Wells ascribes to Peirce a peculiar brand of innatism, the view that the human mind possesses intrinsic powers, akin to the instincts of brutes, among which is guessing ability.193 Herein lay the only original details that Wells credits to Peirces evolutionism.194 Guessing, usually termed abduction or retroduction, is one of three classes of inference, the others being deducti on and induction. As will further be explored in chapter six, abduction is an instinctive behavi or as well as a class of inference. It is a capacity for guessing the correct hypothesis, explained by pr inciples of mathematical probability, a propensity for successful scientif ic investigation that arose through natural selection, a process generalized by Peirce t o, among other things, explain the emergence of habit which, in turn, Peirce assimilates into instinct.195 Peirces evolutionism is, for We lls, yet another source of confusion and a symptom of an ultimately fatal Peircean flaw an incurable schizophr enia apparent in his stand on Darwinism.196 Wells explains: In relation to Darwinism Peirce shifts in two ways. (1) He switches between taking it as a scientific theo ry and taking it as a philosophy; (2) When taking it as a philosophy, he varies between favoring it and opposing it. The vacillation cannot be explained away by chronological considerations There are other symp toms of Peirces disease, but I pick Darwinism for its combination of two properties. It is evolutionary; and it is scientific a nd Peirce claims to be f undamentally scientific.197 193. Rulon S. Wells, Distinctively Human Semiotic, in Essays in Semiotics, eds. Kristeva, ReyDebove, and Umiker (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), 102. 194. Rulon Wells, Peirce as an American in Perspectives on Peirce, ed. Richard J. Bernstein (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1965), 28ff. 195. Wells, Distinctly Human Semiotic, 104. 196. Wells, The True Nature of Peirces Evolutionism, 304. 197. Ibid.

PAGE 146

137 Peirces oscillating position on Darwinism stems from what Wells sees as a tendency to over generalize. Philip Wiener traced Peirces evolutionism to three sources that are held in tension. Peirces evolutionism was not simp ly Darwins hypothesis of Natural Selection, but a certain deliberate ge neralization of it in Peirces own speculative form. In the first place, Peirce regarded Darwins view as indicating only one of three equally operative modes of the evolution of organic species: (1) Darwins s uccessively purely fortuitous and insensible variations in reproduction ; (2) Lamarcks mode of inheritance of acquired characters which assumes continuous, very minute changes due wholly to strivi ngs or efforts of individuals in adapting themselves to the environment; (3) Cuviers and Agassiz defense of the cataclysmal mode of large abrupt changes in reproduction. All three of these modes of evolution have been operative, according to Peirce.198 It is this very insistence on holding to thr ee incongruent modes of evolution, generalized so as to form a single, ultimately untestable hypothesis that, for Wells, degenerates to pseudo-science or metaphysical Darwinism. When speculation is extended to the question of the origin of triadic relationships, Peirce finds himself at a loss. The problem of how genuine triadic relationships first arose in the world is a better, because more definite, formulation of the problem of how life first came about; and no explanation has ever been offered except that of pure chance, which we must suspect to be no explanation, owing to the suspicion that pure chance may itself be a vital phenomenon. In that case, life in the physiological sens e would be due to life in the metaphysical sense.199 The alternative, not considered here, is: that chance is not itse lf vital, and is a f undamental, irreducible phenomenon, in which case the explanation that life arose by chance is genuinely an explanation, whether it is the true one or a false one. Now in many places Peirce does speak of chance as fundamental, especially 198. Philip Wiener, Evolution and the Founders of Pragmatism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 77. 199. CP 6.322.

PAGE 147

138 in his cosmogonic discussions wher e he describes the successive evolution of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness. Life as thirdness ought according to these discussions to be an evolute of chance as firstness, with secondness somehow interposed. And one of the reasons why Darwinism appealed to Peirce in certain moods is his belief that it resembles statistical mechanics in ex hibiting the rise of order out of chaos. According to this line of th inking, choice is opposed to chance as the mental to the non-mental.200 Closely related to this is the question of the evolution of signs. A requirement of evolution is that if something x is said to have evolved, it di d so from what it is not, i.e., from nonx So if judgment is to have evolve d, it must have evolved from nonjudgment. A common view of its e volution is that judgment evolved from feeling. What is the relevance for semiotics? Here the fundamental question is whether signs have evolved from non-signs so that they are not omnipresent in the universe or whether signs are omnipresent as thirdness is omnipresent, so that a ny evolution of signs must be of one kind of sign from another, e.g. thought -signs (signs whose interpretants are thoughts) from feeling-signs.201 This leads us to the third of Wells criticisms of Peirces sign theory that we will mention. The classification of signs into ic ons, indices, and symbols suffers from two basic faults, according to Wells. ( a) It is not what it purpor ts to be, a classificatio n of signs, but rather a classification of aspects of signs. The utility of the trichotomy is greatly increased if we think of a sign not as being an icon, or an index, or a symbol, but as having iconic, indexical, or symbolic aspects. For then we may find more than one aspect in a sign, and we will be free to describe a sign as, say, predominan tly iconic but with a discernible symbolic component. ( b ) The trichotomy presupposes Peirces categories; this renders it scientif ically unsuitable because of their idealism. Peirce attempts, as part of his idealism, to generalize the concept of mind so that it applies to phenomena that would ordinarily be considered non-mental.202 200. Wells, The True Nature of Peirces Evolutionism, 316. 201. Wells, Peirces Notio n of the Symbol, 201. 202. Wells, Distinctively Human Semiotic, 9.

PAGE 148

139 It is this process of genera lization, inspired by mathematics, which Wells believes vitiates Peirces semiotics by being conflated with the process of virtualization, whereby the twitching frog leg and the logic machine are said to reason virtua lly, i.e., behave as they would if they actually reasoned, a treatment that tempts behaviorism.203 This, for Wells, represents a serious philosophical error. Generalization and virtualiz ation are incompatible operations, i.e. in any instance where we apply one of them, we must not apply the other. We must not say both that x is a special case of y [generalization] and that every y other than what is plainly x is virtually x. If we regard x as a special case of y, we can give to some word which originally denoted the class x a generalized sense whereby it denotes y. When the two classes are furthermore such that the effects of any y are the same effects of any x, then any word which denotes x will, when qualified by virtually denote y. Thus any instance of virtualiza tion is also an instance of generalization; a y that is virtually an x in the original sense is without qualification an x in the generalized sense. Whenever virtualizing is possible, generalizing is unnecessar y, but virtualizing is not always possible.204 Elsewhere Wells shows how Peirce employs the methodological error to assimilate choice, as a salient quality of minds, to the process of natural selection.205 He quotes a very telling passage from Peirce that makes his point. This is the way the mathematician s upplements facts in the interest of formal rhetoric. He must take care not to misrepresent the real world; but his ideal addition to it may have any properties that simplicity dictates. This is an immense e ngine of thought in mathematics.206 203. CP 2.711, 6.144. 204. Wells, Peirces Notion of the Symbom, 199-200, 205. Wells, The True Nature of Peirces Evolutionism, 315. 206. CP 4.117.

PAGE 149

140 Methodological errors aside and for th e sake of argument allowing virtual thought to stand, Wells finds Peirces treatment of emotions as interpretants an intriguing possibility for a Peircean zoosemiotic. With emotions as interpretants, we may give a different account than otherwise of brutes, i.e., nonhuman animals. With virtual thought admitted it [becomes] possible to sa y that brutes think. But according to one fairly common view, brutes dont actually th ink (have thoughts), but they do actually perceive and ac tually feel. Of course we could ascribe virtual perception and virtual feeling to them as well as virtual thought, but if emotions (feelings ) are not excluded from being interpretants, the way is open to accommodating the fairly common view in these terms: Brute semiosis is only virtual semiosis when the interpretant is a thought, but may be actual when the interpretant is an emotion.207 However, as Thomas L. Short is quick to point out in his new book, Peirces distinctive explanation of the intentiona lity of emotions limits the theory of signs to animals.208 Outside of purposeful action, which appears to be limited to animals, no mistakes are possible, and where no mistakes are possible, there can be no intentionality, hence, no interpretation; but all si gnificance is relative to potential interpretation.209 Thus Short denies, in opposition to many of Peirces be tter known interpreters, among them Thomas Sebeok, Helmut Pape, and Jasper Hoffmeyer, and certainly Peirce himself, that the semiotic can be extended to all of life or to cosmology.210 This limitation would seem to jeopardize not only the generality of the sign theory but also Peirces synechism. We will return to the notion of intenti onality in the next section. We turn now to Peirces semiotic theory of emotion. 207. Wells, Peirces Notio n of the Symbol, 207. 208. Thomas L. Short, Peirces Theory of Sign, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). 209. Ibid., 177. 210. Ibid.

PAGE 150

141 D. Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion While Peirces writings on the emo tions are dispersed throughout the body of his work and lack a systematic explication, they do possess a remarkable consistency because he never deviated from the postulate that all mental phenomena resemble cognitions in that they are capable of repr esentation. Not only was Pe irce explicit on what an emotion is, he was clear on what an emoti on is for. Using Peirces sign theory David Savan pieced together the scattered fragments of these writings to fo rm what he believed to be a coherent, comprehensive, and provocative emotion theory.211 It is this landmark work that will provide the backdrop for our study. To begin, as we have noted, Peirce s views on emotion pl ace him in opposition to the dominant psychological vi ews expressed by James in the 1880s. According to that theory, emotions originate as bodily rather than mental states. They are mere feelings of bodily response reducible to sensation. As such it is impossible to distinguish emotions because as immediate, all feelings are alike. Knowledge requires discrimination and discrimination requires the introduc tion of a mediating concept. For Peirce, emotions cannot be imme diately intuited feelings or there would be no way to distinguish one emotion from anothe r. Here Peirce makes use of the Kantian distinction between immediate and mediate. Quality seems at first sight to be given in the impression. Such results of introspection are untrustworthy. A pr oposition asserts the applicability of a mediate conception to a more immediate one. Since this is asserted the more mediate conception is clearl y regarded independently of this circumstance, for otherwise the two conceptions would not be 211. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 319.

PAGE 151

142 distinguished, but one would be thou ght through the other, without this latter being an object of thought, at all Take, for example, the proposition, This stove is blac k. Here the conception of this stove is the more immediate, that of black the more mediate, which latter, to be predicated of the former, must be discriminated from it and considered in itself, not as applied to the object, but simply as embodying a quality, blackness.212 The process of discriminating mediate from i mmediate conceptions itself was referred to by Peirce as precision or prescission and adapted from Dun Scotus. The terms precision and abstraction, which were formerly applied to every kind of separation, are now limited, not merely to mental separation, but to that which arises from attention to one element and neglect of the other Abstraction or precision ought to be carefully distinguished from two other modes of mental separation, which may be termed discrimination and dissociation. Discrimination has to do merely with the senses of the terms, and only draws a distinction in meaning. Dissociation is that separation which, in the absence of a constant association, is permitted by the law of association of images. It is the consciousness of one thing, without the necessary simultaneous consciousness of the other. Abstracti on or precision, therefore, supposes a greater separation than discrimi nation, but a less separation than dissociation.213 In an interesting footnote to this passage he adds: Some writers called every descrip tion of abstraction by the name precision, dividing precision into the real and the mental, and the latter into the negative and the positive; but the better usage named these abstraction divided into real and intentional, and the latter into negative (in which character from which abstr action is made is imagined to be deniable of the subject prescinded) and into precisive abstraction or precision, where the subject prescinded is supposed (in some hypothetical state of things) w ithout any supposition, whether affirmative or negative, in resp ect to the character abstracted.214 Thus, like his contemporary Franz Brentano, of whose work he seems to have been ignorant, Peirce unearthed the Scholastic concep t of intentionality and used it to mark off 212. CP 1.551. 213. CP 1.549. 214. CP 1.549n2.

PAGE 152

143 the mental. Anything having intentionality ha s an object and, as su ch, is a sign, being comprised of a subject, its object, and an interpretant, possesses intentionality. As we will see, emotions as signs, like thoughts, also possess intentionality or are about something, a subject. We will return to this discussion of intentionality in the next chapter where it raises some interesting questions for Peirces understanding of the self, for as we have seen, Peirce contends all thought is in signs but not all thought is necessarily connected with a brain. Thomas L. Short su mmarizes the challenge facing Peirce: Peirce denies both that all interpretant s are thoughts and that they are all formed by or in persons. Besides, Peirce wished to analyze the human mind as a special case of semeiosis, rather than semeioisis as a special application of mind. He repeatedly described thoughts as signs (e.g., as early as 1868: CP 5.283-309) and even portray ed man as being a sign ( CP 5.310-317). Therefore, if his philos ophy is coherent, Peirce must be able to account for the intentionality of signs without presupposing that of thought.215 Here we should pause to offer a few words of explanation on how Peirce understood the concepts of feeling and emotion. As Savan points out, Peirce sometimes slipped and spoke of emotions as feelings but he never departed from his position that such emotion feelings are not im mediate intuitions, or first impressions of sense.216 Early and late, Peirce denied the power of introspection to provide privileged information of mental states, and linked feelings, along with emotions, to cognition as the fundamental type of mental activity. This is a central theme of the 1868 Cognition Series. In 1902, his position had changed very little. It is nonsense to call attention to an outward object by the name of introspection. Introspecti on is direct observation of the operations of the 215. Thomas L. Short, Semeiosis and Intentionality, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 17 (Summer 1981): 203. 216. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 321n6.

PAGE 153

144 mind as mental operations; because, as for feelings, they are always referred to some object, and there is no observation of feelings except as characters of [external] objects.217 In addressing the doctrine of association in 1893 he again assailed the popular notion of introspection. Now the truth is that the data of introspection are in these respects altogether analogous to those of exte rnal observation. Introspection does not directly reveal what is immediat ely present to consciousness, at all; but only what seems to have been present from the standpoint of subsequent reflection We cannot dire ctly observe even so much as that there is such a thing as present consciousness.218 As such, feelings, like emotions, are derivativ e; all mental states are signs and all signs are cognitions. Every emotion, every burst of passion, every exercise of will, is like cognition.219 Stanley M. Harrison summarizes this epistemological view. The significance and originality of Peir ces position is seen in his view that even sensations and emotions are interpretative or representative responses to an object. In short, Peirce developed the position that a sensation is not [a] firs t impression of sense ( CP 5.291), but the result of a manifold of more comp lex impressions originating in the sense organs. A sensation of a certain co lor, for example, is for Peirce a simple predicate taken in place of a co mplex predicate; in other words, it fulfills the function of any hypothesis ( CP 5.291). Inasmuch as this occurs spontaneously, a sensation is a natural mental sign a predicate of something determined logically by the feelings which precede it ( CP 5.292-292).220 As we observed, the confounding of first impres sions of sense with thought is an error that Peirce saw leading James to the error of internalism.221 217. CP 7.376. 218. CP 7.420. 219. CP 1.376. 220. Stanley M. Harrison, Peirce on Persons, in Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial Congress, eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph Ransdell and Ca rolyn Eisele (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1981), 218. 221. CP 8.81.

PAGE 154

145 In the essay Some Consequences of Four Incapacities, Peirce further distinguished sensations from emotions. Obse rving that for every feeling there seems to be a corresponding motion in th e body, he goes on to say that: In the case of a sensation the manifold of impressions which precede and determine it are not of a kind, the bodily motion corresponding to which comes from any large ganglio n or from the brain, and probably for this reason the sensation produ ces no great commotion in the bodily organism; and the sensation itself is not a thought which has a very strong influence upon the current of thought except by virtue of the information it may serve to afford. An emotion on the other hand, comes much later in the developmen t of thought I mean, further from the first beginning of the cognition of its object and the thoughts which determine it already have motions co rresponding to them in the brain, or the chief ganglion: consequently, it produces large movements in the body, and independently of its representative value, strongly affects the current of thought. The animal motions to which I allude, are, in the first place and obviously, blushing, blenching, staring, smiling, scowling, pouting, laughing, weeping, sobbing, wriggling, flinching, trembling, being petrified, sighing, sniffing, shrugging, groaning, heartsinking, trepidation, swelling of the heart, et c., etc. To these may, perhaps, be added, in the second place, other more complicated actions, which nevertheless spring from a direct impulse and not from deliberation.222 Emotions, therefore, as Thomas L. Short ha s indicated, serve to c onnect information to action for leading to action is preci sely what is meant by the noun affect.223 Finally, Peirce discriminated sensations and emo tions from the feeling of a thought. That which distinguishes both sensat ions proper and emotions from the feeling of a thought, is th at in the case of the tw o former the material quality is made prominent, because the thought has no relation of reason to the thoughts which determine it, wh ich exists in the last case and detracts from the attention given to the mere feeling.224 222. CP 5.293. 223. Thomas L. Short, David Savans Peirce Studies, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (1986): 118. 224. CP 5.294.

PAGE 155

146 Peirce provided a number of examples of sens ation ranging from the simple, such as the experience of a particular color to the more complex, such as that of beauty.225 So emotions and sensations are, fo r Peirce, signs and he offered three arguments for why they are such and not, as James contended, feelings of bodily change or qualities of immediately intuited feelings.226 First, they are not qual ities of immediate feeling because an immediate feeling is as we have seen, unmediat ed and, as such, can only be considered sui generis. As imme diate, nothing can be predicated of feeling; it is a First, undistinguished, unanalyzable, ine xplicable, and unintellectual.227 If emotions were immediate feelings, we could not tell one emo tion from another and such is not the case. Secondly, emotions, as Thirds, are not fee ling events. Feeling events are Seconds, existing in a period of time. When that time has ended that particular occurrence of the feeling will have passed from existen ce. On the contrary, David Savan noted: [That] emotions do recur. My revulsion at torture is the same today as it was yesterday. To compare two temporally distinct occurrences they must be brought together, set side by side, and this can happen only if the two occurrences are repres ented. An emotion is, then, a representamen, a sign.228 Finally, for Peirce, whatever el se an emotion might be, it is a representati on, a predicate to a subject. If a man is angry, he is saying to hims elf that this or that is vile and outrageous. If he is in joy, he is sa ying this is delicious. If he is wondering, he is saying this is strange. In short, whenever a man feels, he is thinking of something. Even those passions which have no definite 225. CP 5.291. 226. These arguments are summarized by Savan in his essay, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 321ff. 227. CP 5.289. 228. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 321.

PAGE 156

147 object as melancholy only come to consciousness through tinging the objects of thought.229 Elsewhere he noted that the intrinsic connect ion between emotions and objects is how the child learns not only how to identify em otions but also gains a sense of self. A child hears it said that the stove is hot. But it is not, he says; and, indeed, that central body is not touchi ng it, and only what that touches is hot or cold. But he becomes aware of ignorance, and it is necessary to suppose a self in which this ignorance can inhere.230 The resulting burn incites feelings which are not predicates but which cause the child to ascribe the pain to the stove. The stove is ba d and she is made furious by the awful thing that burned her. The immediate feeling pr oduced by the stove is pain. The emotion of anger that arises from the pain is a ju dgment relating the pain to the stove. In this way, Peirce contended, emotions are analogous to hypotheses. The emotions, as a little observation will show, arise, when our attention is strongly drawn to complex and inconceivable circumstances. Fear arises when we cannot predict our fate; joy in the case of certain indescribable and peculiarly comple x sensations. If there are some indication that something greatly for my interest, and which I have anticipated would happen, may not happen; and if, after weighing probabilities, and inventing safegua rds, and straining for further information, I find myself unable to come to any fixed conclusion in reference to the future, in the pla ce of that intellectual hypothetic inference which I seek, the feeling of anxiety arises. When something happens for which I cannot account, I wonder. When I endeavor to realize to myself what I never can do, a pleasure in the future, I hope. I do not understand you, is the phr ase of an angry man. The indescribable, the ineffable, the incomprehensible, commonly excite emotion. Thus an emotion is always a simple predicate substituted by an operation of the mind for a highly complicated predicate. Now if we consider that a very complex pred icate demands explanation by means of an hypothesis, that that hypothe sis must be a simpler predicate substituted for that complex one; and that when we have an emotion, an 229. CP 5.292. 230. CP 5.233.

PAGE 157

148 hypothesis, strictly speaki ng, is hardly possible the analogy of the parts played by emotion and hypot hesis is very striking.231 There is, however, a marked difference between an emotion and an intellectual hypothesis. [I]n the case of the latter, that to whatever the simple hypothetic predicate can be applied, of that th e complex predicate is true; whereas, in the case of an emotion this is a proposition for which no reason can be given, but which is determined merely by our emotional constitution. But this corresponds precisely to th e difference between hypothesis and reasoning from definition to definitum .232 For all of its novelty the theory as presented thus far has not been without its critics. Wells questioned the depiction of em otions as predicates not only as one more instance of Peirces propensity to over-gener alize but a reductionism directly resulting from this propensity. When someone, A, is angry, Peirce pr oposes to say that his anger is a predicate. A predicate of what? Not of A, but of th e universe, or at least of the world that A confronts. It is then, what since Santayana has been called an objectified emotion: not A is angry, but Things are (or the world is) anger-worthy. Th is is Peirces preferred treatment, a feature of his cognitivistic face, but it is not dictated either by his abstract definition of sign or by his phaneroscopy [i.e. phenomenology]. Phaneroscopy could justify saying th at besides anger there is angerworthiness, and perhaps anger-worthine ss is the cause of anger, but it could not justify saying that A is angry at B is not hing but A judges that B is anger-worthy; it could not justify reductionism in general, nor cognitivism in particular.233 G. Lynn Stephens is critical of the analogy of emotion to hypothesis. Having claimed that both arise under conditions of perplexity or uncertainty through the substitution of a 231. CP 5.292. 232. CP 5.292. 233. Wells, Peirces Notio n of the Symbol, 206.

PAGE 158

149 simple for a complex predicate, Peirce must show how emotions operate both to simplify our thinking and assuage our uncertainty. The analogy presents certain problems as it stands. Is emotion connected with uncertainty in the way Peirce su ggests? It would seem that fear, for example, often arises when we can predict our fate. Im afraid of the injection because I know it is going to hurt A more pressing question is, How should we take this analogy ? Is it only an analogy, or does he regard the mental activity involved in emotion as a form of hypothetic reasoning. He suggests that both em otion and hypothesis represent a simplification of our thinking on some matter. The sorts of simplification may be different, how ever. The hypothesis simplifies by explaining: it makes sense of a pu zzling situation. When hypothetic reasoning is successful, we understand th ings better than we did before. Does Peirce really attribute such an explanatory function in the emotions? Do I understand my situati on better because I get angry about it? Does fear make me bette r able to predict my fate?234 Pointing to Peirces treatment of anxiety in CP 2.592 above, Stephens concludes that: [A]nxiety appears not as a hypothesis, but as a substitute for hypothetic inference: in place of the intellect ual hypothetic inference which I seek, the feeling of anxiety rises. The simplification achieved by becoming anxious seems to be a matter of replacing a state of mind characterized by conflicting inclinations and attribut es by one in which a single feeling predominates. Whatever the similarities between this sort of process and hypothetical explanation, anxiety can ha rdly be regarded as a form of explanation.235 The text of CP 5.292 makes it clear that the simplification attained by emotion is nonexplanatory in nature. The feeli ng of a thought, Peirce argued in CP 5.292, has a logical relation to the thoughts which precede it. It is governed by the rules of valid or probable inference. Sensations and emotions bear no su ch marks. For Peirce, they involve thought in fact are thoughts by virtue of being about something without involving or being cognitions. Cognition is a sequence of thoughts in which the propositions expressed by 234. G. Lynn Stephens, Cognition and Emotion in Peirces Theory of Mental Activity, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (1981), p.135. 235. Ibid.

PAGE 159

150 the successive thoughts are related by the rules of valid inference.236 The emotions are not so ordered. There is nothi ng in the content of the [emoti onal] thought which explains why it should arise only on occasi on of these determining thoughts.237 Instead, Stephens reminds us that Peirce claimed emotions rise from brute connections effected by the constitution of our nature, and not through the logical connections between thoughts that marking cognition as such, ar e not reducible to cognition.238 By introducing reference to our emotional constitution, Peirce gives up his assertion that cognition is the essential form of mental activity and that every mental act is an inference derived either from hypothe tical or abductive reasoning, on the one hand, or by reasoning from definition to defin itum, i.e., generalization, on the other hand.239 Notwithstanding the analogies he draws between these mental processes of cognition and those giving rise to emotion, emotion is not on Peirces own a ccount, reducible to cognition and thus he abandons, tacitly at leas t, the project of explaining every mental action as an instance of valid inference.240 In chapter six we will return to Stephens rather serious charge when we examine in more detail Peirces notion of abductive reasoning as it relates to his understanding of instinct. It is my contention that his synechism and his inferentialist program do afford us a cognitive understanding of emotion on Peirces own terms. If we accept Peirces declaration in CP 1.376 every emotion, every burst of passion, every exercise of will, is like a cogniti on as more than simile and grant that 236. Ibid., 138-9. 237. CP 5.294. 238. Stephens, Cognition and Emotion in Peirces Theory of Mental Activity, 131. 239. CP 2.426, 5.291. 240. Stephens, Cognition and Emotion in Peirces Theory of Mental Activity, 131.

PAGE 160

151 all mental states are signs and all signs are c ognitions, then we can begin to examine what kind of signs emotions might be. If an emoti on is a sign, what are it s grounds, its objects, and its interpretants? Peirce was not at all cl ear on the matter but David Savan believes it is relatively easy to draw conclusions from the mass of his semiotic. As to the ground of an emotion, i.e., the nature of the sign or how it picks out its objects, Savan concludes that an emotion is a legisign because ever y emotion has certain law-like features. First, an emotion has a pattern unrolling over a period of time. Joy rises and falls, becomes more intens e and fades. Fear comes to us in waves, moving us to flight but al so freezing us into immobility. Anger runs a course, taking some time to reach its zenith, growing more intense if it is not then di scharged, and so on. Second, an emotion is general, and exists only through instances. I may be moved to joy by any number of things a meeting with an old friend, good news, Beethovens Ninth, and so on. Third is Peirces repeated thesis that what can be fitted into a system of explanation must have at least some of the char acteristics of a law But emotions do enter the systematic ex planation of behavior. Further, emotions can be justified, shown to be inappropriate, disproportionately strong or weak, and so it.241 Finally, Savan points out that emotions, lik e all legisigns, exist through instances or replicas, i.e., as tokens to a type. Peirce held that the immediate obj ect of a sign, or the object under a specific description, is relative to circumstances of time and place and Savan believes it is easily identifiable in expressions of emotion. An approaching friend makes me feel happy. The lurking stranger fills me with fear. The dyna mic object of an emotion as sign could only be known, according to Savan, by the ideal completion of an investigation revealing the class of all things giving ri se to a particular emotion. 241. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 323.

PAGE 161

152 Given the two trichotomies Peirce empl oyed, the interpretant of an emotion is far less obvious. Savans account of emotions as interpretants is complicated by his advocacy of a six-fold classification consisting of both of Peirces triads, a position that he asserts emerged obscurely and laconically in some of [Peirces] last writings.242 According to Savans classification, interpre tants are, for Peirce, either immediate, dynamic, or final (or normal) a nd dynamic interpretants, as the actual dynamic effect of a sign can be emotional, en ergetic, or logical. The information which the sign is capable of transmitting to its interpretants, and which it has collected from the prior signs it interprets. It is this significance, conveyed by the simple presentation of the sign itself, that is the Immediate Interpretant.243 The Dynamic Interpretant is the actual semeiotic effect which the sign in fact produces.244 The Final Interpretant is the semeiotic effect which would be produced by a sign if it could finally and fully satisfy the norm by which it is intended to be judged. Since this purpose provides the norm influencing the changes in the succession of Dyna mic Interpretants, it may also be called the Normal Interpretant.245 First, the emotional dynamic interpretant is the qualitative semeiotic effect of that sign Second, the dynamic interpretant may be an act in which some energy is expended, and such an act Peirce called an energetic interpretant. The energetic inte rpretant may be a muscular encounter with the external world, or it may be the manipulation and exploration of the images of our inner world. The logical dynamic interpretant is the thoug ht, concept, or genera l understanding actually produced by a sign. To think is to make inferences, to draw out the consequences of certain premisses, to move in accordance with some general rule.246 232. David Savan, An Introduction to C.S. Peirces Full System of Semeiotic, Monograph Series of the Toronto Semiotic Circle, no. 1, Toronto (1987-8), 48. 243. Ibid., 52-3. 244. Ibid., 55. 245. Ibid., 63. 246. Ibid., 57-8.

PAGE 162

153 Brandon Lalor, whose classification of Peirces intepretan ts we are following, simplifies this presentation by treating the emoti onal, energetic, logical triad as a case of the particular, concrete, experi ence or effect that interprets a sign. As such, the emotional interpretant is a feeling pr oduced by a sign. The energetic interpretant is an action produced by a sign. The logical interpretant is a rule, habit, or law produced by a sign.247 If, as Peirce seems to indicate at least some of the time that interpretants are signs248 and all signs are cognitions, it woul d seem that emotions viewed as interpretants would at the very least be quasi-cognitions and not just a superfluity of unruly thought, simple brute connections emanating from our evolved emo tional constitution and standing in a merely analogous relation to cognition. This is the case Peirce seems to be trying to make in the Cognition Series of 1868. Ten years later his position, fundamentally unchanged, would be stated in even stronger terms. Hypothesis substitutes for a complicated tangle of predicates attached to one subject, a single con ception. Now, there is a peculiar sensation to belonging to the act of th inking that each of thes e predicates inheres in the subject. In hypothetical inferenc e this complicated feeling so produced is replaced by a single f eeling of greater intensity, that belonging to the act of thinking th e hypothetic conclusion. Now when our nervous system is excited in a complicated way, there being a relation between the elements of th e excitation, the result is a single harmonious disturbance which I ca ll an emotion. Thus, the various 247. For an interesting treatment of the important differences between rule and law see Rulon S. Wells, Thirdness and Linguistics, in The Signifying Animal, eds. Imenegard Rausch and Gerald F. Carr (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1980). 248. Thomas L. Short has this to say in response to the question of whether every interpretant is a sign: Such a view is consonant with the theory of cognition Peirce sketched in two articles in 1868. According to that theory there is no first cognition and no last cognition Evidence for Peirces having relinquished the view that every sign is an interpre tant may be found in his accounts of the three basic relations of sign to object: in none of them must the sign be an interpretant of a prior sign of the same object. The proposition that every interpretant is a sign, however, is one that Peirce seems to have maintained to about 1906. Thomas L. Short, David Savans Peirce Studies, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (1986): 103-4.

PAGE 163

154 sounds made by the instruments of an orchestra strike upon the ear, and the result is a peculiar musical emo tion, quite distinct from the sounds themselves. This emotion is essentially the same thing [emphasis mine] as an hypothetic inference, and ever y hypothetic inference involves the formation of such an emotion. We may say, therefore, that hypothesis produces the sensuous element of thought.249 Here hypothesis is used to refer to both the type of reas oning (later termed abduction or retroduction) and the product of that reasoning, the simplifying predicate. Savan noted, however, that if this was the sum of the theory, it would be an inadequate account of emotion. A theory in which emotions are understood only in their role as simplifying hypotheses or coping mechanisms does not lead us to an understanding of emotional affect, or the nor mative or evaluative function of emotion, without which we can never come to a deep er appreciation for the real differences between sensation and emotion. In chapters six and seven we will address the normative function of what Peirce called the logical se ntiments. For the present we will turn our attention to the dynamic affect of emotion. Savan wished us to understand affect in a sp ecialized way as: That variation in intensity of arousal and agitation that is manifested both by involuntary physiological cha nges and by larger movements of approach and withdrawal. And emoti onal person and this usage of the word emotion is often passed over by cognitivists is one who readily undergoes sharp changes of affect. He or she is volatile, easily agitated, passing quickly from elation to depr ession, from calm to excitement or lassitude. He or she is overwhel med by emotion, dominated by it, and held in its grip. An emotional meeting is one in which we expect tears and laughter, passionate gestures, tempestuous movements. It is affect which is the criterion of the presence of emotion.250 249. CP 2.643. 250. Savan, Peirces Theory of Emotion, 326.

PAGE 164

155 This understanding complements Shorts etym ological rendering of the noun as leading to action noted earlier. It is a definition that honors the Latin motus animae as the apparent root of emotion and does justi ce to nineteenth centu ry psychology by not introducing any twentiet h-century notions. Savan traced the origin of dynamic affect to the 1878 Popular Science Monthly series of six essays, the firs t two of which The Fixation of Belief and How to Make Our Ideas Clear are largely regarded as the first formal statement of pragmatism. However, Short believes the roots of the aff ective dimension of emotion are present in the papers of 1868, especially in CP 5.293 where Peirce makes it clear that emotions are conceived as both simplifying hypotheses and as affective expressions and, as such, serve more than as a mere conveyance of information.251 Interestingly, the 1878 series makes no use of semiotic. This is no doubt in part due to the fact that this series, collectively titled Illustrations of the L ogic of Science, was written for general consumption and published in a popular journal. In any case, Pe irce presented an affective theory of doubt and belief in 1878 that shows him to be more than a pure cognitivist. Peirces theory of doubt is the kernel of a seme iotic theory of emotion as affect.252 The first thing Peirce wants to show is that doubt cannot be willed any more than can love or joy or fear. This is at the crux of his critique of Cartesianism. Some philosophers have imagined th at to start an inquiry it was only necessary to utter a ques tion whether orally or by setting it down upon paper, and have recommended us to begin our studies with questioning everything! But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative 251. Short, David Savans Peirce Studies, 118, 252. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion , 327.

PAGE 165

156 form does not stimulate the mind to a ny struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle.253 Why cannot men see that what we do not doubt, we do not doubt, so that it is false pretense to pretend to call it into question?254 Pretending to doubt is as irrational as it is mendacious. Real, living, doubt is however, a fee ling of irritation that we seek to overcome with the calm and satisfactory state ( CP 5.372) acquired in belief. Belief is a subjective feeling of mastery ( CP 5.389) in which the irrita tion of doubt is assuaged, regardless of whether the belief is mistaken. Doubt is an un easy and dissatisfied state from which we free ourselves and pass into the state of belief.255 We find that the action of thought is excited by the irrita tion of doubt, and ceases when belief is attained.256 Doubt, then, is a viscer al discomfort by which we are goaded in inquiry toward the settlement of belief. Belief, for its part, has but three properties. First, it is something we are aware of; second, it appeases the irritation of doubt; and, third, it involves the establishment in our nature of a rule of action, or, say for short, a habit.257 We possess an instinctive dislike of an undecided state of mind, exaggerated into a vague dread of doubt and this causes us cling spasmodically to the views we already have.258 Savan asserts that doubt is an energe tic interpretant of an emotion that has been disturbed by a sharp encounter with resistant fact.259 Peirce described the experience as 253. CP 5.376. 254. CP 2.192. 255. CP 5.372. 256. CP 5.394. 257. CP 5.397. 258. CP 5.377. 259. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 327.

PAGE 166

157 shocking or percussive,260 something beyond our control. As with all energetic intepretants, as we can see from the language Peirce chose, doubt exci tes action, irritates, moves us, causes us to cling, i.e., involves e ffort. The effort may be a muscular one but is much more usually an exertio n upon the Inner World, a mental effort.261 The effect can, however, be outward and tur bulent, uncontrollable and controlling. For example, it is the shock of en counter with an outrageous act or person that triggers our first violent anger. If the outra geous act persists we become more agitated and en raged. The persistence of the outrageous act operates as an impe rative, demanding our complete and absorbed attention. Emotional affect preempts both mind and body, imperiously controlling all thought and action. To be overwhelmed by an emotion is to become its creature.262 To further understand the affective dimension of emotion we must turn to the feeling subject of this turbulence, the experiencing self. From there we will return to the role of affect in inquiry, the process defined by Peirce in the 1878 essays as the struggle to attain a state of be lief caused by the irritation of doubt. It is this state of belief that, in turn, is our guide to action by satisfying our desires.263 260. CP 8.370. 261. CP 5.475. 262. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 328. 263. CP 5.374-5.

PAGE 167

158 Chapter Four The Self as Sign For, as the fact that every thought is a sign, taken in conjunction with the fact that life is a train of thought, proves that man is a sign; so that every thought is an external sign, proves that man is an external sign. That is to say, the man and the externa l sign are identical in the same sense in which the words homo and man are identical. Thus my language is the sum total of myself; for the man is thought. -Peirce, Collected Papers A. The Negated Self Richard Bernstein spoke for generations of interpreters when he wrote that, The nature of human individuality always s eemed to be a source of intellectual embarrassment for Peirce.1 William James, on the other hand, had written in his Principles of Psychology that, The only states of consciousne ss that we naturally deal with are found in personal consciousne ss, minds, selves, concrete particular Is and yous.2 Writing in 1892, just two years later, Peir ce labeled the philos ophical theory of personal identity, the metaphysics of wickedness.3 To be sure, a sampling of what else he had to say on the subject reveals that Pe irce did not hold the notion of self in high regard. Ignorance and error are all that dis tinguish our private selves from the absolute ego of pure apperception.4 Epigraph CP 5:314. 1. Richard J. Bernstein, Action, Conduct, and Self-Control, in Perspectives on Peirce, ed. Richard J. Bernstein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 90. 2. James, Principles of Psychology 226. 3. CP 7.571. 4. CP 5.235.

PAGE 168

159 Now you and I what are we? Mere cells on the social organism Psychological analysis shows that there is nothing which distinguishes my personal identity except my faults and my limitations or, if you please, my blind will, which it is my highest endeavor to annihilate.5 [Y]our neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psyc hology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attri bute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarest delusion of vanity. In the second place, all men who resemble you and are in analogous circumstance s are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in the same way in which your neighbors are you.6 There is still another direction in which the barbaric conception of personal identity must be broadened. A Brahmanical hymn begins as follows: I am that pure and infini te Self, who am bliss, eternal, manifest, all-pervading, and who am th e substrate of all that owns name and form. This expresses more than humiliation, the utter swallowing up of the the poor individual self in the Spirit of prayer. All communication from mind to mind is through the continuity of being. A man is capable of having assigned to him a role in the drama of creation, and so far as he loses himself in that role, no matter how humbly it may be, so far he identifies himself with its Author.7 The Bulgarian philosopher Ivan Mladenov recen tly concluded, more generally, that after a closer look, the strong impression remain s that something about the issue of subjectivity constantly irritated Peirce [and] this did not chan ge with the maturing of his view.8 This chapter will consist of an a ttempt to account for possible reasons why. In a set of questions on William Jamess Principles of Psychology9 that Peirce prepared for the writing of a review article in the Nation there are two that are pertinent to the matter of the individual ego. The first, addressing James view of the absolute 5. CP 1:673. 6. CP 7.571. 7. CP 7.572. 8. Ivan Mladenov, Conceptualizing Metaphors (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), 104. 9. CP 8.72-90.

PAGE 169

160 insulation of individual minds, was cited in the previous chapter. The second response follows a lengthy quote from Principles on the privacy of thoughts. Everybody will admit a personal self exists in the same sense in which a snark [the imaginary animal of Lewis Carrolls poem] exists; that is, there is a phenomenon to which that name is given. It is an illusory phenomenon; but still it is a phenomenon. It is not quite purely illusory, but only mainly so. It is true, for instance, that men are selfish that is, that they are really deluded into supposing themselves to have some isolated existence; and in so far, they have it. To deny the reality of personality is not anti-spiritualis tic; it is only anti-nominalistic.10 Peirces negative view of the indivi dual has several probable sources. First, as Bernstein reminds us, prag matism began, in some measure, as a rebellion against the excesses of subjectivism common to much modern epistemology.11 The result was a failure of the entire m ovement, as much as of Peirce himself, to produce a coherent theory of self. Furthermore, for Peirce pragmatism and realism entailed one another.12 In clarifying the meaning of his pragmaticism [coined circa 1900 to distinguish it from more popularized versions, including Ja mes], Peirce is acutely conscious of the categorical difference between Thirdness and Secondness.13 An undue emphasis on Secondness, that is, unmediated experience or existence, is the source of nomina lism, and in turn, the source of most of what he found errant in most modern philosophy,14 including sensationalism, phenomenalism, materi alism, and especi ally, individualism.15 For Peirce, the overall effect on rationality is insidious. Nominalisms explanation of 10. CP 8.82. 11. Richard J. Bernstein, Praxis and Action (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 197. 12. CP 5.453, 5.470, 5.503. 13. Bernstein, Praxis and Action, 186. 14. CP 1.19. 15. CP 8.38.

PAGE 170

161 e ffects of experience blocks the road of inquiry by hol ding that no amount of evidence from th past can provide predictability regarding th e future. There are no necessary connections between phenomena. Laws are mere habits of association and the whole enterprise of science is rendered unintelligibl e. Paul Forster sums up Peirce s views of the e nominalisms materialistic psychology. The conception of reasoning as deliberation is threatened by determinism. Errors are deemed to be inevitable, beyond the control of those who make them. Humans are reduced from autonomous reasoners to rational machines More se riously, Nominalist psychology is incapable of establishi ng its own foundational status. The defense of psychology must itself exploit psyc hological concepts and methods. Psychology thus accounts for its own authority only by presupposing it, leaving it an edifice that floats on air (8.158).16 The latter point accounts for Pe irces sustained attack on ps ychologism that will concern us in the next chapter. Thirdly, Bernstein suggests there might be an intimate connection between Peirces failure to develop a positive theory of the self and his personal difficulties.17 Peirces personal and professional failings have been well documented and often are cited, justly or otherwise, as cause for shor tcomings in his philos ophy. In a missive to his employer, Peirces first wife observed, A ll his life from babyhood it seems as though everything had conspired to spoil him with indulgence.18 Nearing the end of his life Peirce was moved to prolonged periods of re morse and self-loathing. In a reflective moment he observed, For long years I suffe red unspeakably from ignorance of how 16. Paul D. Forster, Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28 (Fall 1992): 696. 17. Richard J. Bernstein, Action, Conduct, and Self-Control, in Perspectives on Peirce (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 90. 18. Quoted in Murray G. Murphey, The Development of Peirces Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), 17.

PAGE 171

162 to go to work to acquire sovereignty over myself.19 In a letter to James in the spring of 1897 he was finally able to acknowledge: I have learned a great deal about philosophy in the last few years because they have been very misera ble and unsuccessful years, terrible beyond anything that the man of or dinary experience can possibly understand or conceive Much have I learned of life and the world, throwing strong lights upon philosophy in these years. Undoubtedly its tendency is to make one value the sp iritual more, but not an abstract spirituality (It has) led me to rate higher than ever the individual deed as the only real meaning there is (in) the Concept, and yet at the same time to see more sharply than ever that it is not the mere arbitrary force in the deed but the life it give s to the idea that is valuable.20 This is the first inkling Peirce gave that he had established a station for the individual as inquirer and moral agent apart from the ideal community of scientif ic investigators in which he had always vested the limits of inquiry. He was fi fty-six years old. In an attempt to account for the feeli ng subject, we will summarize in this section what Peirce said about the self in a few key points while heeding Thomas L. Shorts cautionary note that sometimes he changed his mind and sometimes he changed his language, and that often he stretched terms so as to emphasize continuities.21 To begin, says Peirce: You have a sense of resistance and at the same time a sense of effort. There can be no resistance without effo rt; there can be no effort without resistance. They are only two ways of describing the same experience. It is a double consciousness. We become aware of ourself in becoming aware of the not-self The idea of other, of not becomes the very pivot of thought.22 19. MS 905, quoted in Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life 341. 20. Quoted in Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life 340-1. 21. Thomas L. Short, Peirces Theory of Signs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 311. 22. CP 1.324.

PAGE 172

163 -self. The two-sidedness of unmediated experien ce, bonded as effort and resistance, is the element of Secondness. Self-consciousness, then, arises in the experience of opposition, from the double-barreled nature of brute experi ence. Recall the trope of consciousness in Peirces letter to James on the nature of Secondness, how thought moves across the mind as a wave moves through the sea, that: This is not a conception, nor is it a p eculiar quality. It is an experience. It comes out most fully in the s hock of reaction between ego and nonego. It is there the double consciousness of effort and resistance. That is something which cannot properly be con ceived. For to conceive it is to generalize it; and to generalize it is to miss altogether the here ness and now ness which is its essence All the actual character of consciousness is merely the sense of shock of the non-ego upon us. Just as a calm sea sleeps except wh ere its rollers dash upon the land.23 Nathan Houser explains that, It is clear from this metaphor that the wave of consciousness is distinct from the mind through which it moves, but it is doubtful that we would say that either the mind possesses th e wave or that the wave possesses the mind.24 So far, all we have referenced is the immediate sense of effort and resistance through which we first become aware of self by becoming aware of non While self-consciousness arises from brute experience, from the shock between ego and non-ego, it develops in the inte rplay of Secondness and Thirdness, in an interfering process between I and the Other , or, between the individual mind and the community mind.25 From this process the concept of self is formed negatively: Thus, he becomes aware of ignorance and it is necessary to suppose a self in which this ignorance can inhere.26 23. CP 8.266. 24. Quoted in Mladenov, Conceptualizing Metaphors 107. 25. Ibid., 106. 26. CP 5.233.

PAGE 173

164 In short, error appears, and it can be explained only by supposing a self which is fallible.27 The individual man, since his separa te existence is manifested only by ignorance and error, so far as he is anything apart from his fellows, and from what he and they are to be, is only a negation.28 Self-awareness, then, arises as a hypothesis to account for error. Here the emphasis is upon growth and development. It is first to be observed that th ere is no known self-consciousness to be accounted for in extremely young children. It has already been pointed out by Kant that the late use of th e very common word I with children indicates an imperfect self-consciousne ss in them, and that, therefore, so far as it is admissible for us to draw any conclusion in regard to the mental state of those who are stil l younger, it must be against the existence of any self-consciousness in them.29 Use of the personal pronoun I develops slowly and only after children manifest powers of thought the complicated trigonometry of vision and the delicate adjustments of coordinated movement.30 The concept of I is a much more sophisticated and abstract notion than me. Short notes that we use the word I ambiguously, sometimes denoting oneself as physical (I went down to the Peiraeu s yesterday) and sometimes denoting an entity distinct from the body (I moved my arm).31 Before the proper understanding and use of I the child has, according to Peirce, fixated on his or her own body in contact with and relation to the im mediate surrounding world and given meaning to the feelings genera ted by what it touches. No one questions that, when a sound is heard by a child, he thinks, not of himself as hearing, but of the bell or other object as sounding. How 27. CP 5.234. 28. CP 5.317. 29. CP 5.227. 30. CP 5.228. 31. Short, Peirces Theory of Signs 315.

PAGE 174

165 when he wills to move a table? Does he think of himself as desiring, or only of the table as fit to be moved? That he has the latter thought is beyond question; that he has the form er, must, until the existence of an intuitive self-consciousne ss is proved, remain an arbitrary and baseless supposition The child must soon discover by observation that things which are thus fit to be chan ged are apt actually to undergo this change, after a contact with that peculiarly important body called Willy or Johnny.32 From this stage of development the child progresses to the mastery of language. The child learns to understand the language; that is to say, a connection between certain sounds and certain facts becomes established in his mind. He has previously noticed th e connection between these sounds and the motions of the lips of bodies somewhat similar to the central one, and has tried the experiment of putting his hand on those lips and has found the sound in that case to be smothered. He thus connects that language with bodies somewhat similar to the central one. By efforts, so unenergetic that they should be calle d rather instinctive, perhaps, than tentative, he learns to produce thos e sounds. So he begins to converse.33 Thus the child acquires a rudimentary knowledge of other beings and learns that he or she may trust them in order to gain deeper understanding of the world. A child hears it said that the stove is hot. But it is not, he says; and, indeed, that central body is not touchi ng it, and only what that touches is hot or cold. But he touches it, a nd finds the testimony confirmed in a striking way. Thus, he becomes aware of ignorance, and it is necessary to suppose a self in which this ignorance can inhere. So testimony gives the first dawning of self-consciousness.34 Such a trust of testimony, how ever, is borne of a sophistication of understanding that reveals the childs grasp of the fact that it is but one of many selves, equivalent in selfhood, each of whom refers to itself by the word I.35 32. CP 5.230-1. 33. CP 5.232. 34. CP 5.233. 35. Thomas L. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction in Self-Consciousness, in Rule of Reason, eds. Jacqueline Brunning and Paul Forster (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 297.

PAGE 175

166 In this account of child development, overlaying the interplay of Secondness with Thirdness, a sense of abstracted personal identity clearly begins to emerge. Yet, apart from the acquirement of language, Peirce ha s not yet posited anything uniquely human about the notion of self. In fact, there is ve ry little about a child associating sounds with certain facts that cannot be claimed for the behavior of other social animals via habitual association of signals with purposeful activity. There certai nly is nothing uniquely human about the ability to discover error and learn from it. Finall y, the capacity to distinguish self from non-self is basic to all protoplasm, evident in the simplest one-celled organisms. Only the capacity to abstract a self in which error may inhere seems to belong to humans alone. Such a view may be in keeping with Peirces s ynechism, that selfhood, like consciousness, is a matter of degree. However, Bernstein rightfully objects that there is nothing in this view of self that warrants a claim of positive Secondness bearing the marks of radical individualit y which characterizes the individual. If my separate existence is manifested only by ignorance and error, if I differ from my fellow man only by being a negation, then where and what is the I that controls and adopts ultimate ideals?36 In the next section we will begin to uncover just what a self is and how it is achieved apart from ignorance and error. B. Consciousness, Self and Self-Control In chapter three we explored Peirce s theory of consciousne ss in relation to his notion of mind and discovered that mind, as Peirce generally presented it, is a much 36. Richard J. Bernstein, Praxis and Action (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 198.

PAGE 176

167 broader concept, external to but containing anything that migh t be described as individual consciousness. Thomas S hort explains that: When Peirce wrote of the phys ical world as having mental characteristics or exhibiting the work ings of mind, he was not referring to an individual mind. His point, rather, was to emphasize the continuity of human mentality with nature, and especially that the minds way of working is a genus not uniquely hum an nor unique even to individual creatures. In the way words have, his usage is as likely to mislead the reader as to convey the meaning in tended. The same point can be made differently; by asserting comm onalities between mind narrowly construed and the (in that se nse) mindless physical world.37 In this case, Peirces commitment to continuity moved him to assert, as part of what he came to call his doctrine of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.38 Consciousness itself, as we saw, is no less troublesome a term in Peirces hands. It is, as he pointed out, ma rked by ambiguity and vagueness. What do we mean by consciousness, for it is rather an ambiguous term. There is that emotion which accompan ies the reflection that we have animal life. A consciousness which is dimmed when animal life is at its ebb, in age or sleep, but which is not dimmed when spiritual life is at its ebb; which is more lively the better animal a man is, but is not so the better man he is In the second pla ce, consciousness is used to mean the knowledge which we have of what is in our minds; the fact that our thought is an index for itself on the ground of a complete identity with itself Consciousness is, als o, used to denote what I call feeling ; as by Mr. [Alexander] Bain whom I mention in order to say that he recognizes the unity of sensation and emotion under this term 39 In another instance Peirce s howed that consciousness is sometimes used to signify the unity in thought, the I think of apperception.40 Given its wide range of usage it should 37. Short, Peirces Theory of Signs 290. 38. CP 6.25, cf. 6.605. 39. CP 7.585-6. 40. CP 5.313.

PAGE 177

168 come as no surprise that in stressing synechism, Peirce began around 1900 to describe a continuum of consciousness. This continuum is grounded in the thre e pseudo-scientific designations that he varying re ferred to as the departments of mental action, states of mind or parts of mind, commonly accepted in the nineteenth century: Feeling, Knowledge, and Will.41 For Peirce there is no sharp delineation between any of the three, each being made to represent three different elements common to all consciousness. No sharp line of demarcation can be drawn between different integral states of mind; certainly not between such stat es as feeling, knowing, and willing. It is plain that we are actively knowing in all our waking minutes, and actually feeling, too. If we are not always willing, we are, at least, at all times consciously reacting against the outer world.42 In 1902 he wrote Synechism amounts to the principle that continuity is the absence of ultimate parts in that which is divisible; and that the form under which alone anything can be understood is the form of generalit y, which is the same thing as continuity.43 The reference to ultimate parts forms the kernel of Peirces attack on nominalism. As Rorty once put it, For Peirce, it is the nominalist and the reductionist who succumb to belief in metaphysical figments namely the belief that beneath all th e evident fuzziness, vagueness, and generality which we encounter in language (and, theref ore in all thought) there are non-fuzzy, particular, clearly intuitable reals.44 It is the nominalists who multiply entities by postulating simples, w ho harbor the belief that language can be transcended, in clinging to the Ockhamistic prejudice that in though t, in being, and in development the indefinite is due to a degeneration from a primary state of perfect 41. CP 7.39. 42. CP 7.541n9. 43. CP 6.173. 44. Richard Rorty, Pragmatism, Categories, and Language, The Philosophical Review 70 (April 1961): 209.

PAGE 178

169 definiteness The truth is rather on the side of the scholastic realists that the unsettled is the primal state, and that definiteness a nd determinateness are, in the large, approximations, developmentally, epistemologically, and metaphysically.45 Consciousness is just such an unsettled, vague and indeterminate notion. Peirce wrote, in 1905, that to be conscious is nothing else than to feel.46 As early as 1892, in a series of essays for the Monist Peirce began asserting that even the slime-mould has the capacity to feel. Consider a gob of protoplasm, say an amoeba or a slime-mould. It does not differ in any radical way from th e contents of a nerve cell, though its functions may be less specialized. Th ere is no doubt that this slimemould, or this amoeba, or at any ra te some similar mass of protoplasm feels. That is to say, it feels when it is in its excited condition.47 In the same series, in an essay that his form er student, Christine Ladd-Franklin, took as evidence he was losing his mind,48 Peirce asserted that even the slime-mould has not only a capacity for feeling but also bears marks of consciousness, feeling but plainly no personality. 49 Peirces purpose in this essay was, in part, to explain what he meant by continuity and establish why synechism is of prime importance in philosophy.50 This effort involved his formula that there is but one law of mind, namely, that ideas tend to spread continuously and to affect certain others which stand to them in a peculiar relation of affectability. In this spreading they lose intensity, and especially the power of affecting others, but gain generality and become welded with other ideas.51 The linking of 45. CP 6.348. 46. CP 1.318. 47. CP 6.133. 48. Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life 211. 49. CP 6.133. 50. CP 6.103. 51. CP 6.104.

PAGE 179

170 consciousness with feeling is an essential ingredient of this philosophical doctrine. The synechist will not believe that some things are conscious and some unconscious unless by consciousness be meant a certain grade of feeling.52 Peirce was intent on showing that th ere is a continuum of feelings, consciousness and ideas. In an attempt at cl arification, he considered con tinuity from the standpoint of Cantors mathematics and from the standpoi nt of both Aristotle and Kant, concluding that: The precise definition is still in doubt; but Kants definition, that a continuum is that of which every part has itself parts of the same kind, seems to be correct. This must not be confounded (as Kant himself confounded it) with infinite divisibi lity, but implies that a line, for example, contains no points until th e continuity is broken by marking the points. In accordance with this it seems necessary to say that a continuum, where it is continuous and unbroken, contains no definite parts, contains no points until the continuity is broken by marking the points In the calculus and theory of functions it is assumed that between any two rational points (or points at distances along the line expressed by rational fractions) there are rational points and that further for every convergent series of such fractions (such as 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, 3.14159, etc.) there is just one limiting point; and such a collection of points is called continuous. But this does not seem to be the common sense idea of continuity. It is only a collection of independent points. Breaking grains of sand more and more will only make the sand more broken. It will not weld th e grains into unbroken continuity.53 His analysis concluded that feeling, and thus consciousness involves time,54 and has spatial extension,55 and that this continuum in space and time is, accordingly, the medium through which ideas are generated and pass from one person to another. Summarizing his thoughts he argued that wit hout this it would have been impossible for minds 52. CP 6.173. 53. CP 6.168. 54. CP 6.164. 55. Ibid.

PAGE 180

171 y present.57 external to one another ever to become coordinated, and equally impossible for any coordination to be established in the ac tion of the nerve-matter of one brain.56 Along this continuum the general idea emerges as a living feeling whose duration is infinitesimal, still embracing innumerable part s, and entirely unlimited but, nevertheless, immediatel Later in the same essay, Peirce turned his attention to th e consideration of a particular phenomenon which is remarkably prominent in our own consciousnesses, that of personality.58 So close are our ideas of personality and self that they appear to be nearly identical, to the extent that they can be apprehended in a given moment.59 Personality, in its fullness, is to be un derstood as some kind of cordination or connection of ideas, and a c onnection between ideas is itse lf a general idea, and a general idea is a living feeling.60 Notwithstanding the sense of self-consciousness that is present in any given moment: Personality, like any other general idea, is not a thing to be apprehended in an instant. It has to be lived in time; nor can any finite time embrace it in all its fullness. Yet in each infini tesimal interval it is present and living, though specially colored by the immediate feeling of that moment. Personality, so far as it is apprehended in a moment, is immediate self-consciousness. Bu t the word cordination implies somewhat more than this; it implies a teleological harmony in ideas, and in the case of personality this teleology is more than a mere purposive pursuit of a predeterminate end; it is a developmental teleology. This is personal character. A general idea, living and conscious now, it is already determinative of acts in the futu re to an extent to which it is not now conscious.61 56. CP 6.134. 57. CP 6.138. 58. CP 6.155. 59. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction in Self-Consciousness, 304. 60. CP 6.155. 61. CP 6.155-6.

PAGE 181

172 Clearly, what Peirce has in mind is not a stat ic end toward which we strive according to nature but a dynamic cluster of ends that we elect for ourselves and which we retain, alter or reject according to our needs at different stages in the process of maturation. Were the ends of a person already explicit, there woul d be no room for development, for growth, for life; and consequently th ere would be no personality.62 Rather, what Peirce had in mind was a notion of the self that was future oriented, experienced in any given moment but comprehended only in the fullness of time. It is the idea that personality is a process of self-discovery, the cons equences of choices made w ithin this ambit of partial understanding and partial ignorance.63 Not only is the self constantly evolving and emerging it is not absolutely an individual. Conversely, as we will closely examine in chapter seven, the communities to which a se lf belongs themselves bear some of the stripes of an individual. In the 1905 Monist series, Peirce put it is way: Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember. The first is that a person is not abso lutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is saying to himself, that is is saying to the other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that one is trying to pe rsuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign, and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to remember is that a mans circle of society (however widely or narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than the person of an individual organism.64 It is in this context that Peirce began in 1907 to link cons ciousness qua feeling to selfcontrol.65 62. CP 6.157. 63. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction in Self-Consciousness, 304. 64. CP 5.421. 65. Short, Peirces Theory of Signs 311.

PAGE 182

173 Peirces theory of self-control was slow and meandering in its development over a span of fifty years. Edward S. Petry, Jr. out lined four very distinct, largely incompatible, stages of development.66 Among the sundry and disparate influences that Petry believes tinge this history in its va rious stages are works of Friedrich Schiller, Emmanuel Swedenborg and Henry James, Sr.; Peirces st udent, the psychologist, Joseph Jastrow; the British Moralists, Johann Friedrich Herbart and William James. The fourth stage was, according to Petry, an attempt at integration of the fully developed concept of self-control with the rest of Peirces philosophy, a process commencing w ith preparation of the 1903 Harvard Lectures on pragmatism and continuing with the developmen t of his doctrine of critical common-sensism around 1905 and culminating in the unpublished writings of 1907. Evident in the works of this latter period are trace elements of his thinking from the earlier stages. It is in this fourth stage th at we find self-control and self-consciousness inseparably linked. For this reason, we will focu s on this stage in the development of the concept. To understand Peirces fully develope d notion of self-control and the role it plays in understanding the developing self, we must start with his understa nding of the use of language. We recall that Peirce believed that learning a language preceded the acquirement of self-consciousness which, itse lf, follows from consciousness of other selves. Thomas Short says that, the ac quired capacity to si gnal our needs or 66. Edward S. Petry, Jr., The Origin and Development of Peirces Concept of Self-Control, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28 (Fall 1992): 667-690.

PAGE 183

174 circumstances to others becomes, as well, a capacity to represent them to ourselves.67 In 1905, Peirce had written: All thinking is by signs; and the brutes use signs. But they perhaps rarely think of them as signs Brutes use language and they seem to exercise some little control over it. But they certainly do not carry this control to anything like the same grade that we do. One extremely important grade of thinking about thought is performed when something, that one has thought about any subject, is itself made a subject of thought.68 This process of making what one has thought ab out a subject into a subject of thought is an adaptation of the mathematical pro cess of hypostatic abstraction, which Peirce remarked may be called the principal engine of mathematical thought.69 Number is [a] product of abstraction; and how useful number is in demonstration, I need not say. That which abstraction does is take a circumstance and regard it as a s ubject acting, suffering, and being A particle is somewhere quite definite ly. It is by abstraction that the mathematician conceives the particle as occupying a point The mere place is now made a subject of thought. The particle moves; and it is by abstraction that the geometer conceive s it as describing a line. This line is merely a fact turned into a substa ntive, is regarded as so substantial that we talk of the line as moving, and as generating a surface which is a new abstraction; and even the surface is made to move.70 Hypostatic abstraction is to be differentiated from the pr ocess of precision, which we explored in the last chapter. Abstraction names two wholly different operations. One of them consists in supposing some feature of the fact to be absent, or at least leaving it out of account. I call that precissive abstraction. The other changes This man is shy to This man is affected with shyness. It may be called clipping the wings of word s provided we call those words in a sentence which show us upon what our attention is to rest because something is about to [be] said of that, the and those words which say something of those subjects the In 67. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction in Self-Consciousness, 301. 68. CP 5.534. 69. CP 2.364. 70. NEM 4:11.

PAGE 184

175 more prosaic language it changes a predicate into a subject (extending the term subject beyond the subject no minative to the subject accusative and subject dative, in short, to what are called the dire ct and indirect objects of the verb.) The rose smells very sweetly is by hypostatic abstraction converted into The rose possesses a delightful perfume. So Cain killed Abel is changed to Cain caused the death of Abel. Perfume and death are hypostatic abstractions. They denote entia rationis whatever that may mean.71 In the Monist series of 1906 Peirce explained how that wonderful operation of hypostatic abstraction by which we seem to create entia rationis that are, nevertheless, sometimes real, furnishes us the means of turning predicates from being signs that we think or think through, into being subjects thought of.72 The resulting entia rationis are direct inferences whose conclusions refer to a subject not referred to by the premisses. Working on his system of existential graphs in 1903, Peirce returned to his favorite example to illustrate such immediate inferences. Opium causes people to sleep; [ Ergo,] Opium possesses a pow er of causing sleep.73 Here a dormative power, not referred to in the premises, is inferred by hypostatic abstraction. Such is the way thought progres ses. We think of the thought-sign itself, making it the object of another thought-sign. Thereupon, we can repe at the operation of hypostatic abstraction, and from these sec ond intentions derive third intentions.74 We are not yet at the point of in ferring self-consciousness. In this case, the entities introduced by hypostatic abstraction are not selves but rather, thoughts, whether 71. NEM 3:762-3. 72. CP 4.549. 73. CP 4.463. 74. CP 4.549.

PAGE 185

176 attributed to selves or not.75 Here enters the notion of self -control. It should come as no surprise that as there are gr ades of consciousness there ar e corresponding grades of selfcontrol. Nor should it be seen as coincidental that the manuscript in which Peirce details the grades of self-control contains a long passage on hypostatic abstraction.76 The reason for this linkage was repeatedly stated by Peirce. Inference is essentially deliber ate and self-cont rolled Reasoning essentially involves self-control 77 In my opinion, it is self-control whic h makes any other than the normal course of thought possible, just as nothing el se makes any other than the normal course of action possible; and just as it is precisely what that that gives room for an ought-to-be of conduct, I mean Morality, so it equally gives room for an ought-to-be of th ought, which is Right Reason; and where there is no self-control, no thing but the normal is possible.78 Reasoning is thought subjected to se lf-control, and that the whole operation of logical se lf-control takes precisely the same quite complicated course which everybody ought to acknowledge is that of effective ethical self-control.79 Thought, for Peirce, is, simply stated, a species of behavior and, as su ch, is controllable. The complicated scale of self-control is one that he outlined later in the same manuscript. Of course there are inhibitions and cordinations that entirely escape consciousness. There are, in the next place, modes of self-control which seem quite instinctive. Next, there is a kind of self-cont rol which results from training. Next, a man can be his own training-master and thus control his self-control. When this po int is reached much or all of the training may be conducted in imagination. When a man controls himself, thus controlling control, he must have some moral rule in view, however special and irrational it may be. But next he may undertake to improve 75. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction in Self-Consciousness, 302. 76. CP 5.533-34. 77 CP 5.108. 78. CP 4.540 (italics mine). 79. CP 5.533.

PAGE 186

177 this rule; that is, to exercise a control over his control of control. To do this he must have something higher than an irrational rule. He must have some sort of moral principle. Th is, in turn, may be controlled by reference to an esthetic ideal of wh at is fine. There are certainly more grades than I have enumerated. Perh aps their number is indefinite. The brutes are certainly capable of more than one grade of control; but it seems to me that our su periority over them is more due to our greater number of grades of self-contro l than it is to our versatility.80 The inhibitions and cordinations that escape consciousness are assumed to be automatic reflexes and responses of the body such as respiration, heartbeat, and the complex mechanism and processes of sight.81 Instinctive self-control, as we will detail in chapter six, is tied to Peirces notion of hypothesis or abduction, its elf an instinctive mode of behavior that is evidenced in a propensity for right reasoning.82 Peirce closely linked instinct, a general tendency to act in a cer tain manner, i.e., a habit or disposition,83 that may or may not be hereditary,84 to sentiment, which he viewed as acquired habit.85 He viewed instinct as a half conscious inference86 and viewed reason and instinct as continuous,87 shading into one another by imperceptible degrees88 with reason, particularly abductive reasoning, being a species of instinct.89 It is at the higher grades of self-control that the faculty of abstra ction is in evidence. Short explains: 80. CP 5.533. 81. Short, Peirces Theory of Signs 311. 82. CP 2.86. 83. CP 2.170. 84. CP 2.160. 85. CP 1.634, 1.637, 1.648, 1.661. 86. CP 6.570. 87. CP 2.3. 88. MS 1101, 831. Portions are quoted in Don Nesher, The Pragmatist Theory of Human Cognition and Common-Sense, in The Peirce Seminar Papers ed. Michael Shapiro (Providence and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1994), 2:103-164. 89. CP 6.475, MS 668, MS 652, MS 1343. Portions of the unpublis hed manuscripts are quoted in Maryann Ayim, Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry (Meerut, India: Anu Prakashan, 1982), 15-18, 28-9, 35ff.

PAGE 187

178 At the highest levels of self-contro l, however, it becomes necessary to bring diverse thoughts, sensations, emotions, decisions, resolutions, actions, and bodily parts into an in tegrated whole, spanning past and future, connecting decision to decision in a single plan, and making many plans into a single life. This is achieved by attributing these various entities to a sing le underlying entity the self that is introduced by hypostatic abstraction as that which thinks those thoughts, suffers those emotions, makes those decisions, commits those actions, forms and breaks those habits, and possess es that body and its parts. The diagram through which we explore a lternative courses of action and their predictable consequences (s ee 1.529), and thereby gain control over the principles of our conduct, include, conspicuously, a sign often the word I designating this suppo sed entity. The highest grades of self-control and consciousness ther efore entail self-consciousness.90 Thus, for Peirce, self-control paradoxically precedes self-awareness. At the highest level of self-control the individual becomes his or her own trainingmaster.91 This, as we have seen, involves commit ment to a moral rule which, in turn, may be refined by a moral principle which, in tu rn, may be guided by an aesthetic notion of the fine or the beautiful. This grounding of ethics in aesthet ics had, after 1903, far reaching implications for inquiry as well as action, resulting in the reformulation of his pragmatism. It is, however, as ones own tr aining master, that one carries out in imagination the representation of actions and their possible consequences. In a 1906 letter to F.C.S. Schiller, Peirce suggested that self-control proceeds from the interplay of several components. The power of self-control is certai nly not a power over what one is doing at the very instant the operatio n of self-control is commenced. It consists (to mention only the leading constituents) first, in comparing ones past deeds with standards, second, in rational deliberation concerning how one will act in the futu re, in itself a highly complicated operation, third, in the formation of a resolve, fourth, in the creation, on the basis of the resolve, of a str ong determination, or modification of 90. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction and Self-Consciousness, 302-3. 91. CP 5.533.

PAGE 188

179 habit. This operation of self-cont rol is a process in which logical sequence is converted into mechani cal sequences or something of the sort. How this happens, we are in my opinion as yet entirely ignorant. There is a class of signs in which the logical sequence is at the same time a mechanical sequence and very likely this fact enters into the explanation.92 The representation of actions and their possi ble consequences involves, as Short notes, the production of signs and their manipulation. Such signs are diagrams and replicas of legisigns. These are the medium, as well, of higher levels of self-contro l, as we trace logical consequences of principles and react emotionally to detailed pictures and complex narratives of what might be. As felt, such signs are the stuff of consciousness in these grades Representation of ones possible actions includes self-designation: W ere I to do this, then what would happen?93 Thus, it is through sign activity that a positive theory of self is possible. The personality, however, as Peirce noted, is not a thing to be apprehended in an instant. It has to be lived in time; nor can any finite time em brace it in all its fullness. Yet in each infinitesimal interval it is present and living, though specia lly colored by the immediate feelings of that moment.94 Personality lies in the unity of the I think which is the unity of symbolization th e unity of consistency a nd belongs to every symbol.95 Thus understood, personality is a c oordination of ideas that is constantly emerging. The word cordination implies a teleological harmony in ideas, and, in the case of personality this teleology is more than a mere purposive pursuit of a predeterminate end; it is a developmental teleology. This is personal character. A general idea li ving and conscious now, is already determinative of acts in the future to an extent to which it is not now conscious. This reference to the fu ture is an essential element of personality.96 92. CP 8.320. 93. Short, Peirces Theory of Signs 312. 94. CP 6.155. 95. CP 7.593. 96. CP 6.156.

PAGE 189

180 Peirces notion of self, as Cola pietro points out, is consistently oriented to the future, and is reflected as a living reality, in a pu rsuit of purposes in which genuinely novel purposes emerge; during any moment of its life, the self is first and foremost a process in which some species of meaning is evolving.97 Character unfolds in the process of the personalitys development. A person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are wh at he is saying to himself, that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time.98 Those thoughts are signs, language itself being a species, through which the i ndividual comes to represent herself. Word and sign ar e used interchangeably by Peirce in the Monist series. the mind is a sign developing accord ing to the laws of inference. What distinguishes a man from a wo rd? There is a di stinction doubtless. The material qualities, the forces which constitute the pure denotative application, and the meaning of th e human sign, are all exceedingly complicated in comparison with those of the word. But these differences are only relative. What other is there? ... [I]t is sufficient to say that there is no element whatever of a ma ns consciousness which has not something corresponding to it in the word; and the reason is obvious. It is that the word and or sign which man uses is the man himself. For, as the fact that every thought is a si gn, taken in conjunction with the fact that life is a train of thought, proves that man is a sign; so that every thought is an external sign. That is to say, the man and the external sign are identical, in the same sense in which the words homo and man are identical. Thus my language is the sum total of myself; for the man is the thought.99 Language, as Short summarizes, thus plays thre e essential, though sepa rate, roles in selfconsciousness. 97. Vincent Colapietro, Peirces Approach to the Self (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 92. 98. CP 5.421. 99. CP 5.313-314.

PAGE 190

181 First, all conception is li nguistic in form: the criterion of an individuals having a concept of anything, including himself, is his correct use of certain words. Second, the content of the concept of selfhood is derived, directly or indirectly, from speech ac ts: we think of selves as those beings that can express themselves in words or as those beings that can think, and thinking we think of as that which can be expressed in words. But, third, we now discover that ce rtain uses of words actually create and sustain the self: there would be no self if it were not for the linguistic legerdemain known as hypos tatic abstraction. This, by positing a self, brings diverse feelings, habits and actions into a single, organized whole, and this unification actually constitutes the self that is posited.100 It is from confluence of these three functions of language that Peirce is able to assert one of his most puzzling and contr oversial beliefs about both the self and signs, namely, that man himself is a sign.101 C. Self as a Sign In order to bring c oherence to the many seemingly di sparate things Peirce had to say about the self and, in turn, as a means to understanding his unusual claim that man is a sign, it is important that we come to term s with his vital distinction between power and force. Understanding this distinction will allow us to better see how self-control, the use of language, and the developmental teleology of ideas, habits, and feelings converge in a reasonably cohesive doctrine of self. Peirce identified the issue as early as 1868. In the sentence following his claim that my language is the sum total of myself; for man is the thought,102 Peirce explains: It is hard for man to understand this because he persists in identifying himself with his will, his power over the animal organism, with brute force. Now the organism is only an instrument of thought. But the identity of a man consists in the consistency of what he does and thinks, 100. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction in Self-Consciousness, 306. 101. CP 5.314. 102. Ibid.

PAGE 191

182 and consistency is the intellectual character of a thing; that is, is its expressing something.103 In 1905, while attempting to refine his understanding of pragmatism and critical common-sensism, Peirce wrote, What he ad ores, if he is a good pragmaticist, is power; not the sham power of brute force, which, ev en in its own specialty of spoiling things, secures such slight results; but the creative power of reasonableness, which subdues all other powers, and rules over them with its scepter, knowledge, and its globe, love.104 The distinction is between blind will as a spec ies of force and self-c ontrol as a species of power.105 The consistency of what the individual does and thinks is the measure of her character, a teleological harmony, a coordinatio n of feelings, ideas, and possible actions directed by self-control toward attrac tive and away from repulsive ideas.106 In this context Colapietro notes: Power is unintelligible apart from an ideal that exerts an attraction. Indeed, the exertion of an attraction by an ideal is perhaps the best way of defining what Peirce meant by pow er. Our capacity to exert control over ourselves ultimately rests upon our ability to open ourselves to the very real exertions of truly attractive ideals.107 Whereas, Peirce had written that there is nothing which distinguishes my personal identity except my faults and my limitations or if you please, my blind will, which it is my highest endeavor to annihilate,108 he now postulated the pow er of self-control in tandem with the purposes of a developmental teleology. 103. CP 5.315. 104. CP 5.520. 105. Colapietro, Peirces Approach to Self 92. 106. CP 5.551. 107. Colapietro, Peirces Approach to Self, 92. 108. CP 1.673.

PAGE 192

183 The means through which we open ourse lves to the attractive ideals is dialogue, both with ourselves and with others.109 Here we recall his word s, that a person is not absolutely an individual, [that] his thoughts are what he is saying to himself, that is to the other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time [and] that a mans circle of society is a sort of loosely compacted pe rson, in some respects of higher rank that the person of an individual organism.110 Conversation, the intrap ersonal dialogue one has with himself, and the interpersonal dialogue one carries on with others, is the means through which the personality emerges as a coordination of feelings, ideas, and habits. In early drafts of the Cognition Series Peirce ha d observed that thinki ng is dialogic in form: Thought, says Plato, is a silent sp eech of the soul with itself.111 Thus, again, it follows that for Peirce all thinking is in signs. Langua ge is the vehicle of thought. As Short noted above, all conception is linguistic in form: the criterion of an individuals having a concept of anything, including himself, is his correct use of certain words.112 Having asserted both that all thought is in signs and that conception is linguistic in form, it was, as we have seen, natura l for Peirce to use word and sign interchangeably.113 His further claim that the the word or sign man uses, is the man himself,114 set him off on an analysis to discover what differences between the two might exist. In a fascinating argument that we havent space to fully investigate, Peirce developed the analogy between a man and a word.115 There are, he noted, significant 109. Ibid. 110. CP 5.421. 111. W 2.172. 112. Short, Hypostatic Abstraction and Self-Consciousness, 306. 113. CP 5.313. 114. Ibid. 115. CP 7.583-596.

PAGE 193

184 differences but concluded that the differences are offset by th e similarities. Some of the properties possessed by both are communication, conformity to law (morality in humans and grammar in words), procreation (senten ces are symbols that produce other symbols or thoughts), the power of effort or attenti on (nothing dissimilar to the denotative power of words), and the power to be in two places at one time (just as six can be written twice a man, as essentially more than his corpus the organism is only an instrument of thought116 can exist in the mind of another man through the communication of his feelings, intentions, and thoughts to the other). When I communicate my thought and my sentiments to a friend with whom I am in full sympathy, so that my feelings pass into him and I am conscious of what he feels, do I not li ve in his brain as well as my own most literally? True, my animal life is not there but my soul, my feeling [,] thought [,] attention are. If this be not so, a man is not a word, it is true, but is something much poorer. There is a miserable material and barbarian notion that a man cannot be in two places at once; as though he were a thing Each man has an identity which far transcends the mere animal; an essence, a meaning subtile (sic) as it may be.117 Not only are a man and a word analogous, th ey affect one another through mutual participation at the level of meaning. The man-sign acquires information, and comes to mean more than he did before. But so do words. Does no t electricity mean more now than it did in the days of Franklin? Man makes the word, and the word means nothing which the man has not made it mean, and that only to some man. But since man can think only by means of words or other external symbols, these might turn round and say: You mean nothing which we have not taught you, and then only so far as you address some word as the interpretant of your thought. In fact, therefore, men and words reciprocally educate each other; eac h increase of a mans information involves and is involved by, a co rresponding increase of a words information.118 116. CP 5.315. 117. CP 7.591. 118. CP 5.313.

PAGE 194

185 As Konstantin Kolenda has observed, this metaphor might blossom into Heideggers claim that it is language, not man, that sp eaks. In its essence, language is neither expression nor an activity of man. Language speaks.119 Kolenda goes on to note that in their respective analyses of meaning, both Heidegger and Peirce emphasized the importance of the future. Heidegger said that meaning gets its structure from a forehaving, a fore-sight, and a fore-conception.120 Peirce, for his part, emphasized the future-oriented nature of meaning vis vis the idealized community of inquirers. As what anything really is, is what it may finally come to be known in the ideal state of complete informa tion, so that reality depends on the ultimate decision of the community; so thought is what it is, only by virtue of its addressing a future thou ght which is in its value as thought identical with it, though more develo ped. In this way, the existence of thought now depends on the future thought of the community.121 Peirce came to the conclusion that man is a sign as early as 1868 and one might be tempted to gloss over it as merely incohe rent metaphor, a weak analogy or perhaps the product of a subconscious i ndwelling of New England transcendentalism. Peirce acknowledged his proximity to Emersons far-reaching influence and the bard of Concord was, in fact, a frequent visitor in Peirces boyhood home.122 While he was not aware of any such stimulus in his work, he left open the possibility of its presence as late as 1892. 119. Konstantin Kolenda, Man is a Sign: Peirce and Heidegger, in Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch and Charles S. Hardwick (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1981), 228. Quote of Heidegger is from Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1971), 197. 120. Ibid., 227. Quote of Heidegger is from Martin Heidegger, Being and Time trans. John Macquarrie and E. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1962), 193. 121. CP 5.316. 122. Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life 45.

PAGE 195

186 I was born and reared in the ne ighborhood of Concord I mean Cambridge at a time when Emers on [F.H., son of Harvard logician Levi], Hedge, and their friends were disseminating the ideas that they had caught from Schelling, and Schelling from Plotinus, from Boehm, or from God knows what minds stricken with the monstrous mysticism of the East. But the atmosphere of Cambridge held many an antiseptic against Concord transcendentalism; and I am not conscious of having contracted any of that virus. Nevertheless, it is probable that some cultured bacilli, some benignant form of the disease was implanted in my soul, unawares, and that now, af ter long incubation, it comes to the surface, modified by mathematical conceptions and by training in physical investigations.123 Arthur Burks, the editor of vol umes seven and eight of the Collected Papers, claimed that it is precisely the tincture of Emersonian tr anscendentalism that re nders Peirces claim that man is a sign incoherent. Only when th e Emerson-like rhetorical veneer is stripped away from this notion and its interpretation will we find an intelligible and interesting doctrine that fits well with the clear parts of Peirces semiotic.124 In doing so, Burks discovers three standard rhetorical devices employed by Peirce that, when explained, lend clarity to Peirces declaration that man is a sign. The first of these devices, consisting of a number of steps, is a variety of weak analogy termed a stretched analogy through which likeness is trea ted as transitive. Burks explains how the device works. Suppose A is like B, which is like C, which is like D. A may nevertheless be unlike D, because th e grounds of each of the likenesses may be quite different. Without realizing it, Peirce stretched the analogy between man and the word by employing a succession of analogies and dropping the middle ones.125 123. CP 6.102. 124. Arthur W. Burks, Man: Sign or Algorithm? A Rhetorical Analysis of Peirces Semiotics, in Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 16 (Fall 1980): 281. 125. Ibid., 284.

PAGE 196

187 Thus, by employing a string of such transitions Burks claims that Peirce is able to conclude that a man and a sign are analogous. Th ere is a problem with this interpretation, however. In CP 7.590, Peirce makes it clear that man is a sign is metaphoric and no mere simile. Commenting on Cuviers claim that metaphysics is nothing but metaphor, Peirce states that: If metaphor be taken literally to m ean an expression of similitude when the sign of predication is employed in stead of the sign of likeness as when we say this man is a fox instead of this man is like a fox, I deny entirely that metaphysicians are gi ven to metaphor; on the contrary, no writers can compare with them for precision of language; but if Cuvier was only using metaphor himself, and meant by metaphor broad comparison on the ground of characters of a formal and highly abstract kind, then, indeed, metaphysics professes to be metaphor that is just its merit as it was Cuviers own merit in Zology.126 Peirce clearly differentiated a certain kind of metaphor from simile and analogy. While he had no formal theory of metaphor and pr ovided few remarks on the subject, some of those remarks are highly suggestive of a m odern view of metaphor developed by I.A. Richards and Max Black known as interactionism that attributes a dimension of creativity generally lacking in similes and analogies which tend to be purely isomorphic and static.127 Peirce scholar Carl Hausman summarizes Blacks view of metaphor. (1) A metaphor is an expression that links two or more normally dissociated subject terms, or, genera lly, linguistic units, each with its own implied complex of meanings. (2) The subject terms interact so that their meanings make differences to one another. (3) The outcome of the interaction is a creation in that it presents new meaning, or a meaningcomplex, that may offer insight.128 126. CP 7.590. 127. I.A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936); and Max Black, Models and Metaphors (Ithaca: Cornell Univer sity Press, 1962). 128. Carl R. Hausman, Peirce and the Interaction View of Metaphor in Peirces Doctrine of Signs eds. Vincent M. Colapietro and Thomas M. Olshewsky (Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter, 1996), 194.

PAGE 197

188 In his Syllabus of 1902, Peirce in cluded the following footnote. If a logician had to construct a language de novo which he actually has almost to do he would naturally say, I shall need prepositions to express the temporal relations of before, after, and at the same time with I shall need prepositions to e xpress the spatial relations of adjoining, containing, touching, of near to, far from, above, below, before, behind, and I shall need prepositions to ex press motions into and out of these situations. For the rest, I can manage with metaphors.129 Prepositions are required to fulfill the Kantian requirement of placing objects in space, time, and motion while metaphors are the principle means of semantic innovation.130 Judging from what he has said about the natu re of signs, I do not believe that Peirces claim that man is a sign is a mere analogy or elliptical simile. Such an interpretation would overlook the dynamic nature of signs, an understanding that is vital to Peirces notion of self as well as signs. Selves and si gns have the mode of being Thirds and, as such, are general. The very being of the general is such that its being never can have been perfected. It always must be in a state of incipiency, of growth. It is like the character of man which consists in the ideas that he will conceive and in the efforts that he will make, and which only develops as the occasions actually arise. Yet, in all his life long no son of Adam has fully manifested what there was in him This development consists in embodiment, that is, in manifestation.131 As Peirce noted in CP 5.313, humans and words acquire information and come to mean more than they did. In the instance of the metaphor, man is a sign, two subjects, man and sign, interact to produce something nove l to each. The metaphor itself is a sign of the creative process that is semiosis. 129. CP 2.290n1. 130. R. Lance Factor, Peirces Definition of Metaphor and its Consequences, in Colapietro and Olshewsky, Peirces Doctrine of Signs 229. 131. CP 1.615.

PAGE 198

189 The second rhetorical device Burks finds in Peirces claim that man is a sign he terms romanticized descriptions, by which he means the use of descriptions with positive emotive effect. Man is a sign is, th en, a romanticized description of men use signs or man is an information processor.132 Again, however, there is a problem with such an interpretation. There is, as we have witnessed, a school of interpretation that has sought to account for the incongruent elements in Peirces thought by postulating two Peirces, One Peirce is exemplified by writi ngs of an empirical, naturalistic, and mathematical stripe and the other Peirce by a body of work bearing the marks of metaphysical, transcendentalist, and idealistic in terests. These interpreters have tended to place the aphoristic man is a sign under the latter heading. While dismissive of the theory of the philosophical schizophrenic,133 Burks accuses Peirce with being intentionally obscure as a way to amp up the emotional impact of the philosophical concept. In fact, Peirce had a well earned re putation as an accomplished lexicographer. He was responsible for hundreds of c ontributions to such publications as Baldwins Dictionary and The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia He possessed a translators knowledge of Greek, Latin, French, and Germ an; demonstrated a genius for etymology and famously developed new terms from an cient roots as he indulged his passion for classification. His occasional turn of a phras e notwithstanding, Peirce was not given to the excessive use of emotive language, part icularly at the cost of precision. The third rhetorical device Burks calls reality labels. This is the rhetorical attribution of value to a mode of being by cal ling it real, substance, or necessary, 132. Burks, Man: Sign or Algorithm? 286. 133. Ibid., 279-80.

PAGE 199

190 and calling less important modes of being by le sser names, such as fact, existence, actual, property, or possible.134 Burks charges Peirce with what we might call philosophical gerrymandering in the naming of his three categories. Thirdness is the highest, and it is call ed the real. Secondness is second best, and it is called existence or actuality. Firstness is mere possibility. Signs and meanings are, of course, Thirdness, and semiotic is the highest of the sciences.135 What Burks is overlooking, however, is the wa y in which the categories originate and function. Peirces categories are, like Kants, universal and necessary. Therefore, as in the case of Kant, they originate not only thr ough observation -for they are conditions by which inductive inference is made intelligib le but also through logic. They are, however, described phenomenologica lly by the means of precision.136 They serve as conditions of intelligibility for the pur pose of reducing the manifold of sensuous impressions to unity and, in earliest iterations of the theory, are framed by the it in general, i.e., substance, and by the is in general, i.e., being, the condition for predication. The categories are ordered accordi ng to function, for one such conception may unite the manifold of sense and yet anot her may be required to unite the conception and the manifold to which it is applied; and so on.137 The emerging gradation is thus hierarchical, according to function. However, the categories cannot function 134. Ibid., 287. 135. Ibid. 136. Carl R. Hausman, Charles S. Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997), 95ff. 137. CP 1.546.

PAGE 200

191 independently of one another. The hierarchy is one of mutual dependence. If genuine, categories cannot be reduced to a lower-order category.138 Thus, in the case of Thirdness: the first, the second, and th e third are all three of th e nature of thirds, or thought, while in respect to one anothe r they are first, second, and third. The first is thought in its capacity as mere possibility; that is, mere mind capable of thinking, or a mere vague idea. The second is thought playing the role of Secondness, or event. That is, it is of the general nature of experience or information. The third is thought in its role as governing Secondness. It brings the information into the mind, or determines the idea and gives it body.139 To claim that man is a sign is merely to draw attention to his or her mode of being a general or a Third which does not cause the man to cease being an instance or a Second. As we have seen, sensations and em otions, as signs, are representative responses to an object for Peirce. So, too, do aesthetic and moral feelings function primarily as interpretations of objects. Good and bad are feelings which first arise as predicates, and therefore are either predicates of the not-I, or are determined by the previous cognitions (there being no intuitiv e power of distinguishing subjective elements of consciousness) That a sensation is not necessarily an intuition, or first impression of sense, is very evident in the case of the sense of beauty When the sensation beautiful is determined by previous cognitions, it always arises as a predicate; that is, we think that something is beautiful. Whenever a se nsation thus arises in consequence of others, induction shows that t hose others are more or less complicated.140 In this manner all thinking is in signs. Whenever we think, we have presen t to the consciousness some feeling, image, conception, or other representation, which serves as a sign. But it follows from our own existence that everything which is present to us is a phenomenal manifestation of our selves. This does not prevent its 138. Hausman, Charles S. Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy 135. 139. CP 1.537. 140. CP 5.247, 291.

PAGE 201

192 being a phenomenon of something without us, just as a rainbow is at once a manifestation both of the sun and of the rain.141 Thus, it is the case that as the conscious life of man consists in the flux or rapid transition of mental states, each one a si gn, Peirce made the appropriate move and affirmed that when we think we ourselves as we are at that moment, appear as a sign.142 In fact, however, it is as a particul ar type of sign that man appears; man is a symbol.143 As we have learned, a symbol is a sign whose meaning is established by convention rather than by nature. Words ar e symbols whose essent ial meaning is ever changing and growing. The self, as a sign, is general. Man, as a symbol, is a sign whose meaning is continuously unfolding in the cour se of its interaction with others, a sign whose true meaning always lies in the future and can never be understood in the present. As a symbol, a general idea, living and conscious now, [the self] is already determinative of acts in the future to an extent it is not now conscious.144 As such, [an individual] cannot know his own essential significance; of hi s eye it is eyebeam.145 To do so, according to Harrison, would amount to pure self-consciousness which is what cannot be achieved. This is so because thought cannot happen in an instant ( CP 5.253) but takes time (albeit an infinitesimal am ount of time), which is but to say 141. CP 5.283. 142. Peirces words are from CP 5.283; Stanley M. Harrison, Peirce on Persons, in Proceedings of the Peirce Bicentennial Congress, eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch and Charles S. Hardwick (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1981), 218. 143. CP 7.583. 144. CP 6.156. 145. CP 7.591, reference is to lines from Emersons Riddle of the Sphinx: The old Sphinx bit her thick lip, / Said, Who taught thee me to name? / I am thy spirit, yoke-fellow, / Of thine eye I am eyebeam. See also CP 1.310, 2.302, 7.425

PAGE 202

193 that all cognition is by means of signs. In the case of pure selfconsciousness, this means that to re present the sign I am at each moment as a sign, I must make it the object for a subsequent sign or thought. No object can be a sign and, at the same time, represent itself as a sign. Had Descartes understood this, there coul d have been no question about the possibility of immediately apprehen ding himself as substance or as anything else.146 To illustrate this very point, Harrison reminds us that Peirce had employed the analogy of a country upon which a map is placed. The map represents the topography of the country in every minute detail, down to the location of the map itself. Thus there will be within the map, a map of the map, and within that, a map of the map of the map, and so on ad infinitum .147 At no instant, then, are we able to be a sign and be present to ourselves as the sign that we are, anymore than the map can be a map and represent itself as a map. Thus are we consigned to ignor ance regarding our essential self and remind ourselves, as Peirce reminded his readers, of Shakespeares words from Measure For Measure : proud man, Most ignorant of what hes most assured, His glassy essence.148 146. Harrison, Peirce on Persons, 219. 147. CP 5.71. 148. CP 5.317; see also CP 7.585.

PAGE 203

194 Chapter Five Ineluctable Dualisms and the Limits of Synechism Logic depends on a mere struggle to escape doubt, which, as it terminates in action, must begin in emotion --Peirce, Collected Papers A. Pragmatisms: Peirce and James In the autumn of 1902, while James was actively negotiating with the Harvard Corporation for a series of pa id lectures for his impoverished and, by that time, suicidal friend, Peirce penned a long letter to his benefactor in wh ich he proclaimed a recent breakthrough in his thinking on pr agmatism. In part, he wrote: I seem myself to be the sole depository at present of the completely developed system [of pragmatism], wh ich all hangs together and cannot receive any proper presentation in fragments. My own view in 1877 [in the essay The Fixation of Belief for Popular Science Monthly ] was crude. Even when I gave my Camb ridge lectures [in 1898] I had not really got to the bottom of it or seen the unity of the whole thing. It was not until after that that I obtained the proof that logic must be founded on ethics, of which it is a higher development. Even then, I was for some time so stupid as not to see that et hics rests in the same manner on a foundation of esthetics These thr ee normative sciences correspond to my three categories, which in thei r psychological aspect, appear as Feeling, Reaction, Thought The true nature of pragmatism cannot be understood without them. It does not, as I seem to have thought at first, take Reaction as the be-all, but it take s the end-all as the be-all, and the End is something that gives its sanction to action. It is of the third category. Only one must not take a no minalistic view of Thought as if it were something that a man had in hi s consciousness. Consciousness may ______________________ Epigraph CP 2.655.

PAGE 204

195 cs. mean any one of the three categories. But if it is to mean Thought it is more without us than within. It is we th at are in it, rather than it in any of us This then leads to synechism, which is the keystone of the arch.1 In the same letter Peirce wrote, I think I could satisfy you that your view of pragmatism requires some modification, that it is the lo gical basis and proof of it (and it can receive no sound support from psychology) and its relation to the categories that have first to be made clear before it can be accurately applied except in very simple ways.2 The richness of this letter is evidenced by the inclusion of several im portant themes from Peirces later thinking that were then taking shape and that he clea rly saw differentiating his own brand of pragmatism from that of Jamess more popular version of the same name. In this way, Peirce was giving an account of his own philosophical development that had recently undergone tremendous fermen t, in his endeavor to ground logic as a science and thereby establish pragmatism as a logical maxim.3 This lead to the notion that logic was dependent upon et hics and ethics, in turn, wa s dependent upon aestheti During this same period, Peirce had been de veloping the notion of synechism, first suggested in 1892,4 as the synthesis of tychism the no tion that chance is operative in the world-and pragmatism.5 The word synechism is the English form of the Greek 1. Ignas K. Skrupskelis and Elizabeth M. Berkeley, eds., Correspondence of William James (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 2002), 10:157-158. 2. Charles Sanders Peirce, Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, ed. Patricia Ann Turrisi (Albany: The State University of New York Press, 1997), 28. This portion of the letter of November 25, 1902 is not included in Skrupskelis and Berkeley. 3. Patricia Ann Turrisi, Comment ary, in Charles Sanders Peirce, Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking, 26. 4. CP 6.103. 5. CP 4.584.

PAGE 205

196 [synechismos], from [synechs] continuous, the Greek word meaning continuity of parts brought about by surgery.6 In the first of a seri es of five essays written for the Monist during the early 1890s, Peirce attempted to explain the propriety of the architectonical approa ch to philosophical systems commended by Kant. That systems ought to be construc ted architectonically has been preached since Kant, but I do not think the full import of the maxim has by any means been apprehended. What I would recommend is that every person who wishes to form an opinion concerning fundamental problems should first of all make a complete survey of human knowledge, should take note of all the valuable ideas in each branch of science, should observe in just what respect each has been successful and where it has failed, in order that, in the light of the thorough acquainta nce so attained of the available materials for a philo sophical theory and of the nature and strength of each, he may proceed to the study of what the problem of philosophy consists in, and of the proper way of solving it.7 In 1896, in another essay for the Monist, Peirce exposited the structure formed by the sciences and the corollary assumption that there is an order to human knowledge. This double assertion, first, that logic ought to draw upon mathematics for control of disputed princi ples, and second that ontological philosophy ought in like manner to draw upon logic, is a case under a general assertion which was made by Auguste Comte, namely, that the sciences may be arranged in a series with reference to the abstractness of their objects; and that each scien ce draws regulating principles from those superior to it in abstractness, while drawing data for its inductions from the sciences inferior to it in abstractness.8 The place of logic was at this time, for Peir ce, central. Logic seeks to show how truth might be attained; all other sciences compri se the various divisions of the attempt to reach the truth. Peirce thus thought that a systematic study of logic would result from an 6. CP 5.565, 5.565n28. 7. CP 6.9. 8. CP 3.427.

PAGE 206

197 examination of its relation to these other scien ces, of their relations to one another, and of the assistance they render to one another.9 According to Murphey, it was around this time, in a lengthy paper entitle d the Logic of Mathematics,10 that Peirce began to work on a more detailed schema of the sciences that resulted in the intricate classification of 1902 in which, as we can see from the letter to James, pragmatism, the categories and the normative sciences are integral to one another.11 The problem was that pragmatism, as a maxim of logic, originated as a means of escaping the irritation of doubt and obtaining satisfaction thro ugh the settlement of belief as the clarification of ideas, thus enabling us to establish habit and predict what sensible experiences we will receive from an object as a consequence of actions of our own.12 As Peirce expressed in the letter to James and often acknowle dged in his later writings, the expression of pragmatism in the 1877-78 Illustrations of the Logic of Science series of essays for Popular Science Monthly was crude. In the first of the Harvard Lectures of 1903, he wrote: My original article [How to Make Our Ideas Clear] carried this back to a psychological principle. The conception of truth, according to me, was developed out of an original impul se to act consistently, to have a definite intention. But in the first place, this was not very clearly made out, and in the second place, I do not th ink it satisfactory to reduce such fundamental things to facts of psychology. For man could alter his nature, or his environment would alter it if he did not voluntarily do so, if the impulse were not what was advantageous or fitting. Why has evolution made mans mind to be so constructed? That is the question 9. Beverly Kent, Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens Univer sity Press, 1980), 54-5. 10. CP 1.417-520. 11. Murphey, The Development of Pe irces Pragmatism, 356. 12. Ibid., 159.

PAGE 207

198 we must nowadays ask, and all attemp ts to ground the fundamentals of logic on psychology are seen to be essentially shallow.13 That is to say, the early expression of prag matism, as one aspect of the doubt-belief theory of inquiry, smacked of psychologism, a term that Peirce never used but clearly understood as any attempt to ground philo sophical explanation in psychological phenomena14 and, as such, not only shallow but thr eatening to his attempt to establish logic as an autonomous science of inquiry and as the classifying science. Thus, as Murphey and others have demonstrated, there is to be found within Peirces work a tension, if not a gulf, between the architectonic attempt to establish logic on a non-sensational foundation and the doubt-belie f theory of inquiry, a tension that he expended considerable effort attempting to resolve during his fina l years. If pragmatism is a regulative principle of logic, it cannot be derive d from psychology or physiology.15 This chapter will examine this incongruity as it is manifested in ostensibly opposed and seemingly irreconcilable statements on matters of theory and practice, reason and sentiment, and conscious and unconscious inference that are prevalent and often contemporaneous in Peirces work. Our capacity to understand the proper function of the passional within the cognitive process rests, in part, on our ability to reconcile these apparent antinomies within Peirces writings. Peirces ongoing effort to ove rcome these internal problems brought his differences with James into sharper relief, as can be seen in the letter quoted above. Not 13. CP 5.28. 14. Dale Jacquette, Introduction, Philosophy, Psychology, and Psychologism, ed. Dale Jacquette (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), 2. 15. Max Fisch, The Proof of Pragmatism, in Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch eds. Kenneth Laine Ketner and Christian J. W. Kloesel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 365.

PAGE 208

199 only does Peirce declare he has proof of the dependence of logic upon ethics for regulative principles of good and bad and ethi cs, in turn, upon aesthetics for its notion of the summum bonum he affirms the correspondence of these three normative sciences to his three categories, without which pragmatism cannot be truly understood. It is through the normative sciences that Peirce can speak of the ends of reason as regulated thought, as thought brought under self-cont rol, while James, having understood pragmatism as authorizing acti on as an end in itself, finds Peirce insisting that only thought, as general, can sanction action. Acti on is Second, thought is Third; he claimed we are closer to the truth to say that we are in Thought rather than Thought in us. Jamess pragmatism had been weighed in the balance by Peirce and found wanting. It was paltry, individualistic, psychologistic and materialistic. Synechism, for Peirce, was the linchpin of pragmatism, a doctrine th at allowed him to understa nd reason as self-controlled thought and thus as a type of purposive acti on. Synechism was the path to unity that could, to Peirces mind, explain the seemi ngly contrary streams in his thought and harmonize the dissonance of the architectonic cl assification of the sc iences and the doubtbelief theory of inquiry. Whether he succeeded in achieving this has long been debated. Murphey believes, as I do, that ultimately the principle of continuity failed him. Peirce, for his part, always seemed to understand what was at stake: [Synechism] is a damned easy way of explaining things, my critics wi ll say Good, I appla ud this objection; and if I do not answer it satisfactorily set me down as a failure if not a humbug.16 16. Logic of Events. Continuity the Master Key, MS 949. Quoted in Murphey, The Development of Peirces Pragmatism 406.

PAGE 209

200 The balance of this chapter will examine the means by which Peirce and his interpreters have attempted to overcome the incongruence of component themes within his philosophy resulting from as Murphey has argued, the incompatibility of his commitment to both the architectonic structure of philosophy and the doubt-belief theory of inquiry. It is in some measure, as Mur phey has suggested, the story of the refinement of one pragmatism (Peirces) through the s uggestions provided by the formulations of another (Jamess). This enrichment was aide d by the maturing of Peirces doctrine of self-control, which will be exam ined in the last section. B. The Bane of Pragmatism As has often been recounted, the origin of pragmatism can be traced to Peirces 1877-8 Illustrations of the Logic of Science series of essays for Popular Science Monthly. In the second of those articles, How to Make Our Ideas Clear, he issued the first iteration of the pragmatic maxim. Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our con ception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.17 In a long footnote to this statement, written in 1903, Peirce drew atten tion to the fact that in these three lines one fi nds, conceivably, conceive, conception, conception, conception, and argued that since he was not stylistically inclined to the repetition of terms: This employment fives times over of derivates of concipere must then have had a purpose. In point of fact it had two. One was to show that I was speaking of meaning in no other sense than that of intellectual purport. The other was to avoid all danger of being understood as 17. CP 5.402.

PAGE 210

201 attempting to explain a concept by percepts, images, schemata, or by anything but concepts. I di d not, therefore, mean to say that acts, which are more strictly singular than anyt hing, could constitute the purport, or adequate proper interpretation, of a ny symbol. I compared action to the finale of the symphony of thought, belief being a demi-cadence. Nobody conceives that the few bars at the end of a musical movement are the purpose of the movement. They may be called its upshot. But the figure would not bear detailed application. I only mention it to show that the suspicion I myself expressed (Baldwins Dictionary Article, Pragmatism ) after a too hasty re reading of the forgotten magazine paper [How to Make Our Ideas Clear], that it expressed a stoic, that is, a nominalistic, materialistic, and utte rly philistine state of thought, was quite mistaken.18 The point in fact, however, is that Peirce, as we have noted, had sensed that the original enouncement of this regulative principl e had come very near resting logic upon perception and many commentators have detected some evidence of psychologism in the two essays of the Illustrations of th e Logic of Science that serve as pragmatisms birth certificate. Later iterations of the maxim and subsequent attempts to explain the original formulation did not entirely remove the whiff of psychologism. First, there was Peirces account of the Metaphysical Club meetings of the early 1870s and the admission that pragmatism was scarce more than a corollary19 to Bains definition of belief that Nic holas St. John Green had brought to the attention of the group. In an unpublished letter to the editor of The Sun Peirce remembered: Green was especially impressed wi th the doctrines of Bain and impressed the rest of us with them; and finally the writer of this brought forward what we called the principl e of pragmatism The particular point that had been made by Bain and that had most struck Green and through him the rest of us, was the insistence that wh at a man really believes is what he would be ready to act upon and to risk much upon. The writer endeavored to weave that truth in with others which he had 18. CP 5.402n3. 19. CP 5.12.

PAGE 211

202 made out for himself, so as to make a consistent doctrine of cognition [emphasis in Peirce].20 Secondly, there was Peirces linkage of pragma tism with the logic of abduction. In the 1903 Harvard Lectures, Peirce laid out th ree cotary propositions of pragmatism.21 The first was the Aristotelian doctrine, Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu .22 The second was that perceptual judgments c ontain general elements, so that universal propositions are deducible from them in the manner in which the logic of relations shows that particular proposit ions usually, not to say invariabl y, allow universal propositions to be necessarily inferred from them.23 And the third of thes e propositions was that : [A]bductive inference shades into perceptual judgment without any sharp line of demarcation between th em; or, in other words, our first premises, the perceptual judgments, ar e to be regarded as an extreme case of abductive inferences, from wh ich they differ in being absolutely beyond criticism. The abductive suggesti on comes to us in a flash. It is an act of insight although of extremely fallible insight. It is true that different elements of the hypothesis we re in our minds before; but it is the idea of putting together what we had never before dreamed of putting together which flashes the new suggestion before our contemplation.24 Complicating the delineation of abductive inference and perceptual judgment is Peirces distinction of perceptual judgment and percepts which are considered to be as unlike as the printed letters in a book, where a Madonna of Murillo is described, are unlike the picture itself.25 There are general elements in perceptual 20. MS 325. Quoted in Fisch, Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism, Essays by Max H. Fisch, 95. 21. In CP 5.180 Peirce wrote: Cos, cotis, is a whetstone. [Cotary propositions] appear to me to put the edge on the maxim of pragmatism. 22. CP 5.181. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. CP 5.54.

PAGE 212

203 judgments which as the first premises of all our reasonings,26 the first judgment of a person as to what is before his senses27 are unlike the percepts from which they are formed. The percept, as the sense-im age reacting upon the mind, is singular and indexical,28 though in some places, e.g. CP 6.542, Peirce seems to suggest that even the percept contains a general element.29 In the final analysis, th e only significant difference between perceptual judgments and hypotheses ar e that the former are not controllable [thus beyond criticism] and th erefore not fully conscious.30 Later in the 1903 lect ures, Peirce proclaimed that If you carefully consider the question of pragmatism you will se e that it is nothing else than the question of the logic of abduction. That is, pragmatism proposes a certain maxim which, if sound, must render needless any further rule as to the admissib ility of hypotheses to rank as hypotheses, that is to say, as explanations of phenomena held as hopeful suggestions; and, furthermore, this is all that the maxim of pragmatism really pretends to do, at least so far as it is confined to logic, and is not unde rstood as a proposition in psychology.31 The problem for Peirce, as we shall investigate in the next chapter, was that abduction (alternately termed retroduction or hypothesis), the third of three types of reasoning employed by humans, was sometimes defined by Peirce as gu essing and described as an instinct we share with animals.32 As Thomas Sebeok points out, Peirces abduction is an instinct 26. CP 5.116. 27. CP 5.115. 28. CP 5.151-2, 7.633. 29. For a thorough discussion of Peirces somewhat convoluted theory of perception see Sandra Rosenthal, Peirces Pragmatic Account of Perception: Issues and Implications, in The Cambridge Companion to Peirce ed. Cheryl Misak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 193-213. 30. CP 5.181. 31. CP 5.196. 32. Charles Sanders Peirce, Guessing, The Hound & Horn 2 (Spring 1929): 267-285.

PAGE 213

204 which relies on unconscious perception of c onnections between aspects of the world [or] subliminal communication of messages.33 Abduction also produces emotion and, Peirce asserts, hypothetic inference is essentially an emotion. Hypothesis substitutes, for a complicated tangle of predicates attached to one subject, a single conception. Now, there is a peculiar sensation belonging to the act of th inking that each of thes e predicates inheres in the subject. In hypothetic inference th is complicated feeling so produced is replaced by a single feeling of greater intensity, that belonging to the act of thinking the hypothetic conclusion. Now, when our nervous system is excited in a complicated way, there being a relation between the elements of the excitation, th e result is a single harmonious disturbance which I call an emoti on. Thus, the various sounds made by the instruments of an orchestra stri ke upon the ear, and the result is a peculiar musical emotion, quite distinct from the sounds themselves. This emotion is essentially the same thing as an hypothetic inference, and every hypothetic inference invol ves the formation of such an emotion. We may say, therefore, that hypothesis produces the sensuous element of thought, and induction the habitual element.34 Here the relationship between a hypothesis and an emotion is one of identity rather than the one of analogy which we saw in CP 5.292. Both are the substitution of a simple predicate for a more complex predicate by an operation of the mind. As we also noted in chapter three, music is a sign and often served Peirce as an example of an immediate or emotional interpretant. Finally, instinct is sometimes equated with sentiment in Peirces writings.35 Thus in the logic of abduction we fi nd a blurring of the distinctions Peirce makes elsewhere between theory and practice, reason and sentiment, and conscious and unconscious inference so that for Peirce even reason and instinct are continuous they 33. Thomas Sebeok, The Play of Musement (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981), 27. 34. CP 2.643. 35. For example, CP 1.63, 1.634, 1.637, 1.648,

PAGE 214

205 shade into one another by imperceptible graduations.36 Moreover, he notes, how fine are the gradations between subconscious, or instinctive, mind and our more conscious and more controlled reason.37 Pragmatism began life not only as a regulative principle of logic but, as Murphey points out, simply a single aspect of a theory of inquiry in which the sole purpose of inquiry is the establishment of belief as a means to overcoming doubt. This duality of purpose seems to undercut the unity of Peir ces philosophy and his resistance to the disposition to make psychology the key to philosophy.38 Moreover, in retrospect, Peirce felt the whole premise of The Fixation of Belief seemed precariously close to a petitio principii My original essay, having been wr itten for a popular monthly, assumes, for no better reason than that real inquiry cannot begin until a state of real doubt arises and ends as soon as Belief is attained, that a settlement of Belief, or, in other words, a state of satisfaction, is all that Truth, or the aim of inquiry, consists in. The re ason I gave for this was so flimsy, while the inference was so nearly the gist of Pragmaticism, that I must confess the argument of that essay mi ght with some justice be said to beg the question.39 As a corrective, Peirce was moved to establish a place within the sciences wherein logic would not be subsumed under any other scie nce, especially psychology, and thus be treated, as had Aristotle, as an organon.40 Before examining the contrary positions created by the dual purpose of pragmatism, we should briefly examine Peirces 36. MS 1101:2, quoted by Maryann Ayim in The ory, Practice and Peircean Pragmatism in Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress, eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch and Charles S. Hardwick (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1981), 51. 37. MS 831:2, quoted by Maryann Ayim in Theory, Practice and Peircean Pragmatism. 38. CN 3:128. 39. CP 6.485. 40. CP 2.547.

PAGE 215

206 opposition to psychologism as the impetus for development of his classification of the sciences as well as refinement of his theory of signs. As clearly as any of his critics, Peirce saw the doubt-belief theory of inquiry, with its unavoidable reference to mental states, as jeopardizing logic. Ha ving publicly declared in 1903 that pragmatism is scarce more than a corollary to Bains definition of belief41 and that belief consists mainly in being delibera tely prepared to adopt the formula believed in as a guide to action,42 Peirce was serving notice that the passage of thirty years since the Popular Science Monthly series had done little to alter the core of his original formulation as a means to ending the irritation of doubt by obtaining a state of belief,43 the essence of which is th e establishment of a habit.44 In 1906, he wrote: It is ... no doubt true that men act, especially in the action of inquiry, as if their sole purpose were to produce a certain kind of feeling, in the sense that when that state of feeling is attained, there is no further effort. It was upon that proposition that I orig inally based pragmaticism, laying it down in the article that in November 1877 [The Fixation of Belief] prepared the ground for my argumen t for the pragmaticistic doctrine ( Pop. Sci. Monthly for January, 1878) [How to Make Our Ideas Clear]. In the case of inquiry, I called that state of feeling firm belief, and said, As soon as a firm belief is reached we are entirely satisfied, whether the belief be true or false, and went on to show how the action of experience consequently was to create the conception of real truth My paper of November 1877, setting out from the proposition that the agitation of a question ceases when satisfaction is attained with the settlement of belief, and then only, goes on to consider how the conception of truth gradually develo ps from that principle under the action of experience; beginning with willful belief or self-mendacity thence rising to the imposition of be liefs by the authority of organized society, then to the idea of a settlem ent of opinion as the result of a fermentation of ideas; and finally reaching the idea of truth as 41. CP 5.12. 42. CP 5.27. 43. CP 5.374. 44. CP 5.398.

PAGE 216

207 overwhelmingly forced upon the mind in experience as the effect of an independent reality.45 In the original essays of 1877-8, Peirce had defined inquiry in terms of a struggle, declaring The irritation of doubt causes a struggle to attain a state of belief. I shall term this struggle Inquiry. 46 This struggle, as he labored to explain, was quite visceral in nature. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a condition that we shall behave in a certain way, when the occasion arises. Doubt has not the least effect of this sort, but stimulates us to action until it is destroyed. This reminds us of a nerve and the reflex action produced thereby; while for the analogue of belie f, in the nervous system, we must look to what are called nervous associat ions for example, to that habit of the nerves in consequence of which the smell of a peach will make the mouth water.47 Repeatedly, he established the se ttlement of belief as the sole end of inquiry and the sole means of overcoming the irritation of an und ecided state of mind. Only then do we obtain the satisfaction of established habits of action. Peirces doubt-b elief theory of inquiry can be roughly summed up in a few short passages. In each instance, the date of publication is given to further show that the doubt-belief theory was a position he held throughout his long career. The irritation of doubt is the only immediate motive for the struggle to attain belief With the doubt, theref ore, the struggle begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends. Hence, the sole object of inquiry is the settlement of opinion.48 45. CP 5.563-564. 46. CP 5.374. 47. CP 5.373. 48. CP 5.375 (1877).

PAGE 217

208 habit efs fs, than playing a tune in di fferent keys is playing different tunes.51 a habit; and a deliberate, or self-controlled, abit is precisely a belief.52 n of a atic activity that in some way must get superseded by a habit.53 Of course, as David Savan reminds us, some beliefs are unsettling, and some doubts relax. Think, for example, of the belief th at danger or pain lie ahead, and the calming effect of doubt upon that belief.54 The point Peirce is making, however, is that both the action of thought is excited by the irritation of doubt, and ceases when belief is attained; so that the production of belief is the sole function of thought.49 And what, then, is belief? It is the demi-cadence which closes a musical phrase in the symphony of our intellectual life. We have seen that it has just three properties: First, it is so mething that we are aware of; second, it appeases the irritation of doubt; and, third, it involves the establishment in our nature of a ru le of action, or, say for short, a 50The essence of belief is the establishment of a habit, and different beli are distinguished by the different modes of action to which they give rise. If beliefs do not differ in this respect, if they appease the same doubt by producing the same rule of action, then no mere differences in the manner of consciousness of them can make them different belie any more [Readiness] to act in a certain wa y under given circumstances and when actuated by a given motive is h Belief is not a momentary mode of consciousness; it is a habit of mind essentially enduring for some time, and mostly (at least) unconscious; and like other habits, it is (until it meets with some surprise that begins its dissolution) perfect ly self-satisfied. Doubt is of an altogether contrary genus. It is not a habit, but the privation of a habit. Now a privatio habit, in order to be anything at all, must be a condition of err 49. CP 5.394 (1878). 50. CP 5.398 (1878). 51. Ibid. 52. CP 5.480 (1907). 53. CP 5.417 (1905). 54. David Savan, Decision and Knowledge in Peirce, in Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1 (1965): 37-8.

PAGE 218

209 belief and doubt are sensational in nature a nd that they constitute modes of action and actions that tend toward regularity unde r prescribed conditi ons are habits. What had changed for Peirce was that James address Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results, delivered to the Philo sophical Union at Berkeley in during the summer of 1898, had introduced the world to the term pragmatism and to Peirce, as its inventor, though he had never used the wo rd in print, even in 1878. For Peirce, pragmatism was simply one aspect of the doubt-belief theory of inquiry, and it was not a sufficiently important aspect to ju stify the use of a separate name.55 But James gave him the credit and now Peirce was in a bind. He was in desperate financial straits. The ever loyal James had once again come to the rescue in an hour of dire need, and had given him a chance not just for fame but for money which that fame could bring through articles and lectures. For personal and financial reasons, therefore, Peirce could not disown the doctrine; nor could he honestly embrace it without qualification. And as controversy and therefore interest gathered about the doctrine, and as James, and subsequently Dewey and Schiller, made their interp retation of it more explicit, Peirce was more and more compelled to diss ociate himself from the school, to stress the differences between his do ctrines and theirs even going so far as to invent a new name, pragm aticism, for his own doctrine and yet to use the notoriety which he had acquired as the inventor of pragmatism to publicize the aspects of his work which he considered important and to try to make enough money to keep the wolf a little longer from the door.56 The subsequent and dramatic reformulation of Peirces thoughts, especially in regard to the classification of the sciences, the theory of signs and the de liberate subsuming of logic under semeiotic was, in no small part, due to his strong distaste for what he felt to be the narrow, popular doctrines of James, Schiller and Dewey that he believed himself to 55. Murphey, The Development of Pe irces Pragmatism, 358. 56. Ibid., 358-9.

PAGE 219

210 have unintentionally inspired. The apostasy comm on to all three was, for Pierce, rooted in psychologism. James 1907 collection of popular lectures entitled Pragmatism was dedicated TO THE MEMORY OF JOHN STUART MILL FROM WHOM I FIRST LEARNED THE PRAGMATIC OPENNESS OF MIND AND WHOM MY FANCY LIKES TO PICTURE AS OUR LEADER WERE HE ALIVE TO-DAY For Peirce, Mills work was the culmination of a movement with a long history, namely [T]he disposition to make psychology the key to philosophy categories, aesthetics, ethics, logic, and metaphysics. Something of it has existed since Descartes; but si nce about 1863 every student of philosophy, even though he be one of those who consider the present psychological tendency excessive, has placed a new and higher estimate than before upon the scientific value of psychology. Here was seen one science, than which no branch of philosophy, in the days when men disputed about the primum cognitum was more enveloped in metaphysical fog, which yet suddenly, that mist lifting, had come out bright and clear as a June forenoon. How could that but happen, as it certainly did, that men should think that the best way to resolve any problem of philosophy would be to reduce it to a question of psychology?57 Mills polemical Examination of Sir Wil liam Hamiltons Philosophy appeared in 1865.58 There Mill had written that: Logic is not a science di stinct from and coordinate with, Psychology. So far as it is a science at all, it is a part, or branch of Psychology; differing from it, on the one hand as a part differs from the whole, and on the other, as an Art differs from a Scie nce. Its theoretical grounds are wholly borrowed from Psychology, and include as much of that science as is required to justify the rules of the ar t. Logic has no need to know more than of the Science of Thinking, than the difference between good thinking and bad. A consequence of this is, that the Necessary Laws of 57. CP 8.167. 58. J.S. Mill, Examination of Sir William Hamiltons Philosophy (London: Longmans, Green, & Company, 1865).

PAGE 220

211 Thought are precisely those with which Logic has least to do, and which belong the most exclusively to Psychology.59 For Peirce, no less than for his contemporaries Frege and Husserl, Mill was seen as part of a tradition and, in crucial respects, as the distillation of the principal methodological commitments of the British empiricist trad ition and, closely allied with this, British associationist psychology (e.g., David Hartley, Thomas Brown, and of course James Mill as well as his son John Stuart).60 Peirces antipathy toward this treatment of logic as psychology ran deep. Such treatments draw no line between an association of ideas which leads to truth, from some recondite cause, and that which does so upon a principle which we are aware of.61 It is arguable that Peirces anti-psy chologism is traceable to his earliest published writings of the mid-1860s62 and, thus, that the psychologism of the Illustrations is apparent only, the result of writing for an audi ence of philosophical laity represented by the readership of Popular Science Monthly, and the attempt to root inquiry in the psychological states of belief and doubt.63 The theory of signs, as well as the system of categories, so central to the discussion of psychological states in the 1868-9 Cognition Series in the Journal of Speculative Philosophy is entirely missing from the six essays of the Illustrations of the Logic of Science. An obvious explanation might be that Peirce viewed his semiotic as beyond the grasp of such an audience. In a re vealing letter to Lady 59. J.S. Mill, Examination of Sir William Hamiltons Philosophy 6th ed. (London: Longmans, Green, and Company., 1889), 461-2. 60. Vincent Colapietro, C.S. Peirces Critique of Psychologism, in Philosophy, Psychology and Psychologism, ed. Dale Jacquette (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003), 161. 61. W 1:410. 62. See Jeff Kasser, Peirces Supposed Psychologism, see Arisbe website: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/libra ry/aboutcsp/kasser/psychol.htm (accessed August 2008). 63. Max H. Fisch, An Unpsychological View of Logic, Peirce, Writings of Charles S. Peirce eds. Peirce Edition Project (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), 1:305-322.

PAGE 221

212 Welby in 1908, Peirce owned that his definition of a sign had lately and necessarily been popularized but only at the risk of introducing psychological factors. I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person which effect I call its Interpretant, that the latter is thereby mediately determined by the former. My inser tion of upon a person is a sop to Cerberus, because I despair of making my own broader conception understood.64 Being abstruse to the masses, however, was only a measure of Peirces discouragement; he despaired of ever being comprehensible to his peers. There was, as Max Fisch suggests, another possible motive. If we recall that the original motive of subsuming logic under semeiotic in 1865 was to avoid basing it on psychology, we can give a tentative and at least partial answer: The sop to Cerberus was lapsing from sign-talk into psych-talk from semeiotic into psychology.65 Thus, it may be suggested, the notion of an effect upon a person in this definition of a sign is the analogue to the practical effects of the original pragmatic formula. As weve noted, James, like J.S. Mill and Alexander Bain before him, was profoundly influenced by Thomas Brow n. The effect of Browns thoroughgoing naturalism can be clearly seen not only in James psychology but in his pragmatism with its emphasis on the individuals flow of experience and its activity. Self-identity [for Brown] becomes essentially a set of my memories having coherence in change, in just the 64. Charles S. Hardwick, ed., Semiotic and Significs: The Correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), 80-1 (italics mine). 65. Max H. Fisch, Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch, eds. Kenneth Laine Ketner and Christian J.W. Kloesel (Bloom ington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 343.

PAGE 222

213 way objects have a kind of permanence even when they are altering through time.66 For Peirce, such individualism ca nnot help but be psychologistic from the standpoint that according to this view, generality is merely the regularity of experience that extends over feelings as well as cognitions of experiencing individuals. Any meaningful notion of law as governing thought is hostage not only to possible differences in how two or more individuals experience the same phenomenon but how a single individual experiences a given phenomenon at different times. The laws of logic, therefore, can be nothing more than regularities in experience ascertained in contiguity, cause and effect, and resemblance, and thereby contrived and contingent. Peirces assertion that apart from whatever else anything ma y be, it is also a sign and that sign is the ultima te and irreducible category presages his gradual movement away from the language of psychology a nd physiology and increasing focus on the classification of scienc es that began around 1880.67 He came at last to a clearly articulated position that logic and psychol ogy have little common interest. In his 1902 grant application to the Carnegie Institution he wrote: If the logician is to talk of the ope rations of the mind at all he must mean by mind something quite different from the object of study of the psychologist Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. A definition of a sign will be given wh ich no more refers to human thought than does the definition of a line as the place which a particle occupies, part by part, during a lapse of time.68 66. Elizabeth Flower, Some Interesting Connections between the Common Sense Realists and the Pragmatists, especially James, in Two Centuries of Philosophy in America ed. Peter Caws (Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield, 1980), 102. 67. Fisch, Peirce, Semeiotic and Pragmatism: Essays of Max H. Fisch, 369. 68. NEM 4:20.

PAGE 223

214 Yet, little of real essence had changed for Peirce since 1865 when he had declared Logic has nothing at all to do with operations of the understanding, acts of the mind, or facts of the intellect.69 What Peirce was actually attempting to discriminate in both of these instances is thinking from thought, a distinction he made else where where thinking is the domain of psychology and thought that of logi c, i.e., semiotic. In a later manuscript Peirce elaborated on the distinction. Thinking is a fabled operation of the mind by which an imaginary object is brought before ones gaze. If that obj ect is a Sign upon which an argument may turn, we call it a Thought. All that we know of the Thinking is that we afterwards remember that our attention was actively on the stretch, and that we seemed to be creating Objects of Transformations of Objects which noting their anal ogy to something supposed to be real, we choose to call an operation of the mind; and we are, of course, quite justified in doi ng so The operation of the mind is an ens rationalis This is my insufficient excuse for speaking of it as fabled.70 We do not directly observe our selves thinking. Peirce was ad amant; we have no power of introspection. All we know of the mental processes of th inking is what we remember of the objects of its production. It is a guess, says Colapietro, put forth as a way of explaining the conjuring and transforma tion of objects in our imaginations.71 Thought, conceived in general terms, applies to the treatment of the imagin ary objects produced by our thinking, i.e. semiosis. This basic distincti on gave rise to the thesis that semiotic is normative while psychology is descriptive, a notion found at the hear t of the taxonomy of sciences. 69. W 1:165. 70. MS 293, 5-6, circa 1906. Quoted in Colapietro C.S. Peirces Critique of Psychologism, 166. 71. Colapietro, Peirces Critique of Psychologism, 166.

PAGE 224

215 C. Peirces Classification of the Sciences As a working scientist, Peirce had a long standing interest in classification. As early as his first series of Lowell lectur es, delivered in 1866, Peirce had produced an inchoate classification of the sciences.72 At least one other attempt followed in 1878.73 Beginning in 1892, Peirce produced a succession of classifications over the next eleven years, continuing to refine the perennial version of 1903 until his death.74 As Beverly Kent indicates, there were several motivations for this work evidenced in his writings. First, philosophy ought to be deliberate and planned out.75 Peirce believed this was inherent in the architectonic approach commended by Kant76 which he acknowledged as an inspiration to his own musings.77 Another reason for classifying the sciences was Peirces desire to provide an architectonic with in which he could test his categories and vindicate them against critics who found th em too speculative.78 By far, however, the overarching concern in the classification of the sc iences was logic. As Kent points out, Peirce affirmed classification to be the business of science, especially the science of logic, that sc ience closest to his heart.79 Related to this, Peirce exhibited, especially during the last decade of his life, a desire to situate logic within other theoretical pursuits and thus make clearer wh at exactly he meant by it and how his views on the subject differed from popular notions. 72. W 1:487-8. 73. Kent, Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences 91ff. 74. Ibid. 75. CP 1.179. 76. CP 6.9. 77. CP 1.176-179, 5.5, 6.33. 78. Kent, Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences, 17. 79. Ibid.

PAGE 225

216 Peirce thought that recognition of th e relation [logic] holds to other sciences would rescue it from attenuation of, worse, from absorption into some other discipline. He wa s particularly anxious to quash prevalent tendencies to collapse logic into mathematics, or to found it on psychology or on metaphysics or on one of the other disciplines that he identified as underlying the logical studies of his contemporaries. The classification would guard against the hazards of attempting to resolve problems of metaphysics and special sciences without thoroughly considering the nature of the reasoning to be used and the basis of its validity.80 Peirce believed that a plausible classificat ion, in which logic wa s thus rescued, would ultimately serve to clarify his pragmatism [By permitting him] to display a given science in relation to other sciences in orde r to exhibit its conceivable effects.81 Since the classification of the scien ces was yet one more unfinished piece of the Peircean corpus, our task in this section w ill be limited to a few general observations concerning the arrangement of the most de finitive version, the classification of 1903. Greater attention will be paid to the identification of logic as a normative science within this schema, and its relation, especially, to psychology. Peirces mature classificati on, like many earlier vers ions, recognized two branches of science: theoretical and practical.82 Theoretical sciences, whose purpose is simply and solely to recognize Gods truth,83 were subdivided into two subbranches which, with the practical sciences, predictabl y formed a triadic schema. Under theoretical sciences, heuretic, or sciences of discovery, are those sciences con cerned with discovery for its own sake, irrespective of anything el se. Sciences of discovery, corresponding to the category of Firstness, include mathematics, philosophy, and what Peirce referred to as 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid., 54. 82. CP 1.239. 83. Ibid.

PAGE 226

217 the special sciences. Each of these sciences of discovery is, likewise, subdivided into groups of three. Mathematics is separated into finite collec tions, infinite collections, and continua. The three species of philosophy, alternately termed cenoscopy, are phenomenology, normative sciences, and metaphysic s. The special sciences, often called idioscopy, are bifurcated into physical sciences (chemistry, physiology, anatomy, astronomy, geology, etc.) and psychical scien ces (psychology, anth ropology, linguistics, history, etc.). Hierarchically arranged, the class of special sciences is a subaltern of philosophy, i.e., idioscopy is subordinate to cenoscopy. By utilizing his classification of the sciences, postulating two distinct spheres of observation and according philosophy a precis e position in the hierarchy of sciences, Peirce buttressed his argument against psyc hologism. In so doing he distinguished psychical truths from psychological truths. We must distinguish between resu lts which depend upon the validity of the scientific method of psychology scientific discoveries and those rough [psychical] facts about the mind which are open to everybodys observation, and which no sane man dreams of calling into question. As a matter of fact, it is upon these latter facts, and upon a series of similar facts about the outer world, that ever y man actually really bases, first, his general metaphysics, and then his metaphysics of the soul.84 Psychical observation regarding mind in gene ral antecedes scientific inquiry into the mind as uniquely human. An example of such an observation is that there is such a state of mind as doubt.85 Psychology, under the pretense of scientific method, is inevitably 84. CN 3:49. 85. CP 2.210.

PAGE 227

218 tied to clandestine metaphysics lying in ambush that skew its findings.86 One of Peirces issues with James Principles of Psychology involved this very point. Every natural science assumes certain data uncritically, and declines to challenge the elements between whic h its own laws obtain, and from which its deductions are carried on. Psychology, the science of finite individual minds, assumes as its data (1) thoughts and feelings and (2) a physical world in time and space with which they coexist and which (3) they know Of course these data themse lves are discussable; but the discussion of them (as of othe r elements) is called metaphysics.87 Commenting on James fallacy in 1901, Peirce remarked that nobody would now propose, as James then did, to write a psychology altogether uninfluenced by any metaphysics. The point is that it has been made manifest that positive psychology cannot escape taking for granted a metaphysics of one kind or another in no inconsiderable measure.88 Thus, the special science of psychol ogy is subordinate to the science of (physical) metaphysics which, in turn, relies upon the normative science of logic for a set of rules concerning our e xperience of the physical world. By 1904, Peirce would conclude that Psychology of all sciences stands most in need of the discoveries of the logician.89 In 1906, he wrote: Logic, to be sure is a positive, not a mathematical science; but it makes no special observations, contenting itself with the ordinary experience of just about everybody. By psychology is meant the special science socalled, the fruit of psychological rese arch. Logic studies the laws under which signs function as such. Sin ce all cognition consists of signs, psychology is in part a special applic ation of logic [i.e. of semiotics], supplemented by additional facts.90 86. CN 3:49. 87. CP 8.59. 88. CN 3:49. 89. CP 8.297. 90. MS 283, variant 60-1, quoted in Colapietro, Peirces Approach to the Self 59.

PAGE 228

219 e or e but The second branch of theoretical scie nce was comprised of th e sciences of review, of which little is ever said,91 but by which Peirce meant the business of those who occupy themselves with arranging the result s of discovery, beginni ng with digests, and going on to form a philosophy of science.92 It is a department perfectly well r ecognized. It belongs by virtue of its purpose to the branch of Theory; yet varies enough in its purpose from the active science to be erected into a subbranch [sic ] Its design is to sum up the results of all the theoretical sciences and to study them as forming one system.93 Kent points that Peirce appeared to be ambivalent as to whether the process of classifying the sciences is the business of logic or the sciences of review.94 Nevertheless, it is the science of review that systematizes conclusions arrived at by th sciences of discovery, supplemen ts these with its own investigations, and uses them f its own purpose [ MS 693a.78].95 Beyond these few statements, Peirce did not elaborate on the sciences of review and never enumerated or further specified them by nam apparently saw them roughly corresponding to the category of Thirdness in mediating somehow between theory and practice.96 The other general division of the sciences in 1903 was th e practical sciences, comprising a third major grouping. Where the theo retical sciences were, in fact, viewed 91. CP 1.202, 1.243. 92. CP 1.182. 93. CP 1.256. 94. Kent, Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences 48. 95. Maryann Ayim, Theory, Practice, and Peircean Pragmatism in Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch and Charles S. Hardwick (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1981), 51. 96. It is Ayims well documented conjecture that the sciences of review mediated between theory and practice in Peirces architectoni c though Peirce himself apparently never articulated this view.

PAGE 229

220 as pure science, the practical sciences were often viewed as synonymous with the arts.97 Where the purpose of theoretical science was understood as discovery of Gods truth, the practical sciences are for the uses of life98 or to satisfy our desi res. Peirce claimed to have identified over three hundred of these99 and included such examples as pedagogy, etiquette, horology, surveying, navigati on, telegraphy, printing, engraving and deciphering.100 Productive in nature, this class of sciences (arts) relates to action and, thus, to Secondness. What was novel in the 1903 classificati on and what is of special interest here, was the tripartition of philosophy. Philosophy has three grand divisions. The first is Phenomenology, which simply contemplates the Univer sal Phenomenon and discerns its ubiquitous elements, Firstness, S econdness, and Thirdness, together perhaps with other series of cate gories. The second grand division is Normative Science, which investigates the universal and necessary laws of the relation of Phenomena to ends that is, perhaps, to Truth, Right, and Beauty. The third grand division is Metaphysics, which endeavors to comprehend the Reality of the Phenomena.101 The second grand division, normative science, was comprised of aesthetics, ethics, and logic. Together treating phenomena as seconds, each normative science relates, in turn, to one of the categories. Supposing that normative science divides into esthetics, ethics, and logic, then it is easily perceived, from my standpoint, that this division is governed by the three categories. For Normative Science in general being the science of the laws of conf ormity of things to ends, esthetics considers those things whose ends are to embody qualities of feelings 97. CP 2.281. 98. Ibid. 99. Kent, Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences 234n66. 100. CP 1.243. See appendix A for diagram of 1903 classification. 101. CP 5.121.

PAGE 230

221 ethics those things whose ends lie in action and logic those things whose end is to represent something .102 As he noted in the letter to James, Peirces belief that lo gic was dependent upon ethics for the regulative principle governing right reasoning was a long time coming and yet fundamental to any comprehensive understand ing of pragmatism. Likewise, he had come to understand the dependence of ethics upon aes thetics for the regula tive principle of the good. Aesthetics provided ethics with the regulative principle of the summum bonum or the beautiful. This move marked a fundamental change in Peirces view of ethics and, as we shall see, his unders tanding of self-control. Until this time Peirces interest in et hics had been negligible and his views rather dismissive. Negotiating with James for the series of lectures that were to be delivered in Cambridge in 1898 under the proposed title O n the Logic of Events, Peirce was strongly advised by his dear friend to put aside his penc hant for logic and speak on matters of vital importance. James wrote: I am sorry you are sticking to formal logic. I know our graduate school here, and so does Royce, and we bot h agree that there are only 3 men who could possibly follow your [exi stential] graphs and [logic of] relatives. Now be a good boy and think a more popular plan out. I dont want the audience to dwindle to 3 or 4 You are teaming with ideas and the lectures need not by any means form a continuous whole. Separate topics of a vita lly important character would do perfectly well.103 Peirce responded with more than a hint of sarcasm when he wr ote, It is against my deep principles to represent that [tychism and synechism] or any philosophy as a matter of 102. CP 5.129. 103. Charles Sanders Peirce, Reasoning and the Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898, ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner (Cambridge: Harvar d University Press, 1992), introduction, 18ff.

PAGE 231

222 vital importance,104 and in the fourth lect ure of the series that had come to be called Reasoning and the Logic of Things, he pl anned to deliver the following revealing disclaimer. Since I myself am in no sense a teache r, but only a learner, and at the very foot of my class at that, for the reproach made against me is a just one that I am all the time modifyi ng my doctrines, it is only to please you and not by any means myself that I have elected to address you on topics of vital importance. To me no subject could possibly be more distasteful. For I know nothing about matters of vital importance. All I think I know concerns things which I hope may prove of subsidiary importance. As to topics of vital importance I have nothing to inculcate but sentiments. True, I am a sentimenta list in theory. I believe sentiment is far more deeply important than science. But by my training I am nothing [but] a scientific man myself and am quite out of my element in talking about things vitally importa nt. My only excuse for attempting it is my desire to conform to your wishes But I find that struggle as I may and do, I cannot keep dry details altoge ther out of my l ectures. For if I did I should have nothing to say.105 Matters of vital importance, pa radoxically of a very low orde r of importance in the total scheme of things,106 included ethics, a topic Peirce a ssociated with practical matters. Ethical concerns seemed to Peirce most private. Among vitally important truths there is one which I verily believe and which men of infinitely deeper insigh t than mine have believed to be solely important. It is that vitally important facts are of all truths the veriest trifles. For the only vitally important matter is my concern, business or yours. Now you and I what are we? Mere cells of the social organism. Our deepest sentiment pronounces the verdict of our own insignificance.107 104. Ibid., 31-32. 105. Ibid., 283n4. 106. CP 1.647. 107. CP 1.673.

PAGE 232

223 In this arena, reason is of little use. Sentim ent and instinct are all we have to guide us. The inner conflict of moral issues often arise as crises that must be resolved in an instant and do not afford one the luxury of reasoned deliberation. Moreover, Peirce was inclined to think that moral reasoning is dogmatic, impeding investigation, thus violating his great maxim: Do not block the way of inquiry.108 It may very easily happen that the over-development of a mans moral conception should interfere with his progress in philosophy. The protoplasm of philosophy has to be in a liquid state in order that the operations of metabolism may go on. No w morality is a hardening agent. It is astonishing how many abom inable scoundrels there are among sincerely moral people. The difficult y is that morality chokes its own stream. morality, doctrinaire conserva tist that it is, destroys its own vitality by resisting change, and positi vely insisting, This is eternally right: That is eternally wrong. The te ndency of philosophers has always been to make their assertions too ab solute. Nothing stands more in the way of a comprehension of the universe and of the mind. But in morals this tendency acquires triple strength.109 Murphey suggests that it may have been Pe irces study of James pragmatism and the suggestion he found there that the truth is a species of the good, that provided the impetus for Peirces reevaluation of the scien ce of ethics and the further development of his theory of self-control.110 Whether this is so, it is clear that Peirces view of ethics began to change after 1898, ethics eventually being shifted from the realm of applied or pr actical sciences to the realm of theo retical science.111 Ironically, it was James i ndifference to the reasons 108. CP 1.135. 109. CP 2.198. 110. Murphey, The Development of Peirces Philosophy, 361. 111. See Kent, Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the Classification of the Sciences 107ff.

PAGE 233

224 for classifying the sciences that Peirce found es pecially irksome. In a 1904 letter to his friend he wrote: I know that you are not inclined to se e much value in distinguishing one science from another. But my opinion is that it is absolutely necessary to any progress. The standards of certainty must be different in different sciences, the principles to which one science appeals alt ogether different from those of the other. From the po int of view of logic and methodical development the distinctions are of the greatest concern.112 Even more ironic, however, is the fact that Peirces expressed purposes in classifying the sciences, namely the ordering of his philo sophical system and establishing the independence of logic from psychology within that system, also resulted in a number of mutually incompatible positions that impede d his progress. In the next section we will examine several examples that arise from Peirces concurrent commitment to both the doubt-belief theory of inquiry and his arch itectonic construction while exploring the limits of continuity in overcoming these seeming contradictions. D. Intractable Dichotomies The first instance of a contradict ory position arising from Peirces commitment to both the doubt-belief theory of inquiry and the architectonic attemp t to establish the independence of logic from psychological phenom ena that we will look at involves the distinction between and relationship of theory and practice. In the later taxonomy of the sciences, the normative sciences esthetics, ethics, and logic ar e classified under the theoretical sciences, forming the heart of coenoscopy.113 Notwithstanding Peirces evolutionary view of the scie nces as having produced one another and the sciences as 112. CP 8.297. 113. CP 1.573.

PAGE 234

225 having grown out of the useful arts,114 elsewhere he drew a sharp distinction between the theoretical and the practical sciences. Maryann Ayim articulates the problem as follows. Two mutually incompatible positions regarding the relationship between theoretical and practical sciences emerge from Peirces writing: (i) Theory and practice are mutually hostil e and irreconcilably distinct; (ii) they are mutually dependent and associated in an important respect. Position (i) implies that the ends of theoretical as well as practical science are better served if a clear distinction is made between them. Position (ii) suggests that the ends of theoretical and practical sciences may sometimes be best served through an affiliation between the two realms.115 Supporting position (i) we find such statements as the following. In each case the date of authorship is given in order to demons trate that this was a view Peirce held contemporaneous to position (ii). The two masters, theory and practice, you cannot serve.116 Unfortunately practice generally precede s theory, and it is the usual fate of mankind to get things done in so me boggling way first, and find out afterward how they could have been done much more easily and perfectly.117 I stand before you an Aristotelian an d a scientific man, condemning with the whole strength of conviction th e Hellenistic tendency to mingle Philosophy and Practice.118 Pure theoretical knowledge, or science, has nothing directly to say concerning practical matters.119 Reason blunders so very frequently that in practical matters we must rely on instinct and subconscious operations of the mind, as much as possible, in order to succeed. Thus, in my logic there is a great gulf between the methods proper to practical and to theoreti cal questions, in 114. CP 1.226. 115. Ayim, Theory, Practice, and Peircean Pragmatism, 45. 116. CP 1.642 (1898). 117. CP 7.63 (1882). 118. EP 2:29 (1898). 119. CP 1.637 (1898).

PAGE 235

226 which latter I will not allow instinct, natural reason, etc. to have any voice at all.120 Drawing such a rigid distinction, as here be tween theory and practice, goes very much against the grain of the rest of Peirces philo sophy in which synechism is chief among the leading principles. Certainly this stands in stark contrast to any number of statements we might quote supporting position (ii) where theory and practice are essentially compatible, if not continuous. The phenomena of reasoning are, in their general features, parallel to those of moral conduct. For reasoning is essentiall y thought that is under self-control, just as moral conduct is conduct under self-control. Indeed, reasoning is a species of controlled conduct and as such necessarily partakes of the essential f eatures of controlled conduct.121 the whole function of thought is to produce habits of action.122 By its very nature pragmatism inexor ably links theory and practice. All pragmatists agree that their method of as certaining the meanings of words and concepts is no other than that experimental method by which all the successful sciences (in which number nobody in his senses would include metaphysics) have reached the degrees of certainty that are severally proper to them today; th is experimental method being itself nothing but a particular application of an older logical rule, By their fruits ye shall know them.123 The method of science, i.e. inquiry, within which the pragmatic maxim was operative, was, for Peirce, a mode of life.124 As a means of establishing belief both as a settled mental state and as a disposition to act, pr agmatism is, in effect, a denial of the dichotomy between theory and practice. Howe ver, in what Christopher Hookway calls 120. Hardwick, Semiotics and Significs: The Correspondence Between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby 19, 05/07/1904. 121. CP 1.606 (1903). 122. CP 5.400 (1878). 123. CP 5.465 (1907). 124. CP 7.55.

PAGE 236

227 the no belief thesis, Peirce declares in 1898 that there is no proposition at all in science which answers to the conception of belief.125 Peirces post-1900 writings on the normative sciences clearly indicate a connectio n between right feeling (aesthetics), right conduct (ethics) and right thinking (logic).126 Yet in the selected passages, some of them from the same period, we find Peirce establishing the great gulf between theory and practice. In an attempt at explanation, Rulon Wells observed: To admit [this gulf], as to admit any gulf, is to go against the maxim of synechism. But sometimes this must be done. And if we look for the reasons for admitting this gulf, we will find one which is ineluctable. Theory is concerned with the long run; practice, with the short run. The gulf between them rests on the gulf between the long run and the short run, that is, between the whole infini te future and what will happen some finite time from now. But no gulf is more unbridgeable than the gulf between the infinite and the finite.127 The difference between the short and long term is reflected in the distinction between matters of vital importance and useless th ings. As we have noted, the former is associated with the critical and the immediate where sentiment and instinct are surer guides than reason. True science is distinctively the study of useless things. For the useful things will get studied without the aid of scientific Men.128 Truth, as the end of science, is, for Peirce, idealized and, thus, a ssociated with both the long run and, as we will see in chapter seven, the community of inquirers. In 1911, Peirce declared I call truth the predestinate opinion, by wh ich I ought to have meant that which would 125. CP 1.635. 126. CP 1.573 (1906). 127. Rulon Wells, Peirce as an American, in Perspectives on Peirce, ed. Richard Bernstein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 30. 128. CP 1.76.

PAGE 237

228 ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that particular direction.129 This merely echoed his proclamation of 1878 that The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth.130 The mutually opposed statements within Peirces work that arise from contradictory commitments to the doubt/belie f theory of inquiry and the architectonic treatment of the sciences are not easily overcome. Loca ting a mediating principle between theory and practice within the architectonic is more easily achieved. We will briefly examine four that have been suggested. Maryann Ayim finds herself incredul ous, noting that All the underlying tenets of Peirces philosophy cry out against the type of rigid distinction [Peirce] tried to draw between theory and practice.131 Chief among those underlying te nets is continuity, the leading conception of science132 and the master key which unlocks the arcana of philosophy.133 As we noted above, it is Ayims conjecture that Peirce viewed the sciences of review as an inte rmediary classification that would interrelate the conclusions of the theoretical and practic al sciences, and provide what she calls a buffer zone between theory and practice. This threefold di vision of sciences into purely theoretical, purely practical, and intermediate is pe rfectly accommodated by Peirces broad classification of the sciences; it is in fact perfectly consis tent with every other major theme of Peirces philosophy, such as his pragmatism, his evolutionary metaphysics, and 129. EP 2:457. 130. CP 5.407. 131. Ayim, Theory, Practice, and Peircean Pragmatism, 51. 132. CP 1.62. 133. CP 1.163.

PAGE 238

229 his categories.134 The problem, as we have seen, is that Peirce did not elaborate on the sciences of review, never enumerated them and remained ambivalent as to what he wished them to do; he called for, but predic tably never finished, a complete appraisal of the sciences of review.135 David Savan locates the mediating principle in sentiment. He reminds us that, for Peirce, scientific method evolved from a cont ext of instinct, feeling, belief and action, that theoretical inquiry developed from our basic needs a nd feelings associated with feeding, breeding and security and that its hypotheses can be, and often are, drawn from sentiment and instinct.136 Scientific findings, while removed from matters of vital importance, must be justified by sentimen ts which embody moral and social objectives that transcend independent private feeling and pers onal practical imperatives.137 For Peirce, scientific inquiry is communal in nature, guided and measured by sentiments, which are social as well as logical. Peir ce proclaimed in 1868, He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the whole world, is, as it seems to me, illogical in all his inferences, collectively. Logic is r ooted in the social principle.138 Thus the guiding principles of the scientist are three logical sentiments Peirce loos ely associates with Christian principles, and which are used, as we will see in the last chapter, to fix emotion. It may seem strange that I should put forward three sentiments, namely, interest in an indefinite community, recognition of the po ssibility of this interest being made supreme, and ho pe in the unlimited continuance of intellectual activity, as indispensable requirements of logic. Yet, when 134. Ayim, Theory, Practice, and Peircean Pragmatism, 51. 135. CP 1.202. 136. David Savan, The Unity of Peirces Thought, in Pragmatism and Purpose, eds. L.W. Sumner, John G. Slater, Fred Wilson (Toronto: The University of Toronto Press, 1981), 5-7. 137. Ibid. 138. CP 2.655.

PAGE 239

230 we consider that logic depends on a mere struggle to escape doubt, which, as it terminates in action, must begin in emotion, and that furthermore, the only cause of our planting ourselves on reason is that other methods of escaping doubt fail on account of the social impulse, why should we wonder to find social sentiment presupposed in reasoning? As for the other two sent iments which I find necessary, they are so only as supports and accessories of that. It interests me to notice that these three sentiments seem pretty much the same as that famous trio of Charity, Faith, and Hope, whic h, in the estimation of St. Paul, are the finest and greatest of spiritual gifts.139 Savan accepts that Peirce clearly opposed theory and practice. However, he holds that theory and practice may be interdependent and inseparable, like two close friends, without being intrinsically connected.140 While theoretical thinking requires the subordination of short-term personal and social goals to a succession which is potentially infinite,141 theory is subordinated, at least in the short run, to emotional signs that are viewed as distinct from the objectives of vital personal importance associated with practice. Thus, for Savan, theory, practice and emotion form a triadic relationship in Peirces writings. We will return to this notion in chapter seven. Larry Hickman sees Peirce (and, es pecially, Dewey) subordinating both theory and practice to the idea of production.142 Habits are associated with control and control is linked with products and production.143 The whole function of thought is to produce habits of action.144 Viewed on the spectrum of what Hickman terms the cognitivistpraxicalist struggle where, on the one hand, theory is dominant and on the other hand, practice is dominant, Peirce a nd Dewey argued that both posit ions are defective because 139. CP 2.655. 140. Savan, The Unity of Peirces Thought, 5. 141. Ibid., 7. 142. Larry Hickman, The Products of Pragmatism, in Living Doubt eds. Guy Debrock and Menno Hulswit (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994), 13-24. 143. Ibid., 15. 144. CP 5.400.

PAGE 240

231 um, in the both are incomplete. Hickman traces thei r respective (though by no means congruent) positions to an understanding of production or making derived from the Greek poietike. He links this notion in Peirce to th e continuum grades of self-control145 and the associated acquirement of habit,146 whether it be at the lower e nds of the spectr unconscious behavior of a crysta ls formation or, at higher leve ls, in the instinctive social behavior of bees and ants, the trained behavior and elem entary sign usage of certain mammals, or at the level of human animals where control becomes truly self-control and habits are the products of sign manipulation, i.e., control over si gns in their role as signs, as in the case of language.147 The problem with Hickmans thesis is that Peirce, unlike Dewey, doesnt seem to have made much of a distinction between production and action and there are only three references to poietai in the Collected Papers one in reference to category production, another to the production of mathematical hypotheses, and the third to hallucinations. The notion of self-control that bot h Savan and Hickman incorporate into their arguments provides another synechistic strategy. Bernstein affirms that The concept of self-controlled conduct provides the mediating link between the traditional dichotomies of theory and practi ce, thought and action.148 We might add that Peirces development of the theory of self-control suggests a role in mediating ot her dichotomies that we will shortly explore. 145. CP 5.533. 146. CP 5.538. 147. CP 5.534. 148. Richard J. Bernstein, Praxis and Action (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 189.

PAGE 241

232 The next instance of a contradi ctory position arising from Peirces competing allegiances to the doubt/belief theory of i nquiry and the architect onic structure of his classification of the sciences is that which we find between reason and sentiment. Savan briefly touched on this dichotomy in reference to the logical sentiments and the genesis of the scientific method. Much of th is matter will be treated in de pth in the next chapter. It is, however, important to remember that Pe irce often used the terms sentiment and instinct interchangeably, esp ecially when making reference to the social instincts of humans. Ayim notes, Peirce divided instincts into two major types ( CP 7.378): (a) social which have evolved into reason and have b een instrumental in the development of the theoretical sciences ( CP 7.384); and (b) selfish which have retained the characteristics popularly associated with instinct and have b een instrumental in the development of the practical sciences (CP 7.383, 1.75).149 This synonymy will be explored in the next chapter. Peirce was also inclined to equate habit and instinct. If I may be allowed to use the word habit without any implication as to the time or manner in which it took bi rth, so as to be equivalent to the corrected phrase habit or disposition, that is, as some general principle working in a mans nature to determin e how he will act, th en an instinct, in the proper sense of the word, is an inherited habit, or in more accurate language, an inherited disposition. But since it is difficult to make sure whether a habit is inherited or is due to infantile training and tradition, I shall ask leave to employ the word instinct to cover both cases.150 Peirce often saw sentiment and reas on as continuous, his fairly consistent association of reason with th eory and instinct with prac tice, notwithstanding. Just six months before his death, Pe irce expressed his views. 149. Ayim, Theory, Practice, and Peircean Pragmatism, 50. 150. CP 2.170.

PAGE 242

233 I use the word instinct in the precis e sense of an animals faculty of acting (whether physically or psychi cally) in a reasona ble (or better an adaptive) manner when the animal (human or other) would be unable by reasoning to reach the requisite conclusion. It follows that, adopting this definition, I must admit that all reasoning ultimately reposes on instinct. That is to say, it rests on a rule of logic which could not be reached by reasoning without a petitio principii, or its equivalent.151 This professed continuity is, however, complicated by Peirces insistence that reason and sentiment are quite distinct facult ies with vastly different purposes. I would not allow to sentiment or in stinct any weight whatsoever in theoretical matters, not the slightes t. Right sentiment does not demand any such weight; and right reas on would emphatically repudiate the claim if it were made. True, we are driven oftentimes in science to try the suggestions of instinct; but we only try them, we compare them with experience, we hold ourselves read y to throw them overboard at a moments notice from experience. If I allow the supremacy of sentiment in human affairs, I do so at the dict ation of reason itself; and equally at the dictation of sentiment, in theoretical matters I refuse to allow sentiment any weight whatever.152 When it comes to practical affairs, however, we find that instinct seldom errs, while reason goes wrong nearly half the time, if not more frequently.153 He used the example of incest to demonstrate our heavier reli ance on instinct in matters of morality. Biology will doubtless testify that the pr actice [of incest] is inadvisable; but surely nothing that it has to sa y could warrant the intensity of our sentiment about it. When, however, we consider the thrill of horror which the idea excites in us, we find reason in that to consider it to be an instinct; and from that we may infer that if some rationalistic brother and sister were to marry, they would fi nd that the conviction of horrible guilt could not be shaken off.154 151. MS L477. Letter to Frederick Adams Woods, 10/14/1913, quoted by Kenneth L. Ketner, His Glassy Essence : An Autobiography of Charles Sanders Peirce (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1998), 104. 152. CP 1.634. 153. CP 5.445. 154. Ibid.

PAGE 243

234 In the end, instinct is viewed as essential to both theory and practice. In a collection of manuscript pages from 1902-05, Peirce concluded that we cannot even reason except at the suggestion of instinct.155 The segregation of theory and practi ce might be enough to explain, at least in part, the distinct purposes of reason and sentiment were it not for the fact that by 1903 Peirce had come to firmly ensconce the normative sciences within the realm of theoretical science and to recognize the dependence of right thinking upon right conduct and right conduct upon right feeling. If we judge our norm of right reason to be satisfied, we get a feeling of approval, and the inference now not only appears as irresistible as it did before, but it will prove far more unshakable by any doubt. You see at once that we have here all the ma in elements of moral conduct; the general standard mentally conceived beforehand, the efficient agency in the inward nature, the act, the subseq uent comparison of the act with the standard. Examining the phenomena more closely we shall find that not a single element of moral conduct is unrepresented in reasoning.156 Further abetting the ambiguity is the introduction of what Peirce termed il lume naturale, the faculty that makes possible abductive inference,157 is akin to common sense,158 and is instinctive in nature.159 According to this notion, science is nothing but a development of our natural instincts.160 The idea of lumen naturale or, to adopt Peirces usage, il lume naturale is premised on the assumed reasonableness of nature and that mind, as both part and product of nature enjoys an affinity with the logic of the natural order. Unless man have [sic] a natura l bent in accordance w ith natures, he has 155. MS 1343:41; quoted by Larry Holmes, Peirce on Self-Control, in Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2 (Fall 1966): 115. 156. CP 1.606-7. 157. CP 1.80. 158. CP 6.10. 159. CP 1.630. 160. CP 6.604.

PAGE 244

235 no chance of understanding nature at all.161 This natural insight is observable in the propensity of the scientist to a rrive at the correct hypothesis from the nearly infinite realm of possibilities. Thus it is that, our minds having be en formed under the influence of phenomena governed by the laws of mechanics, certain conceptions entering into those laws become im planted in our minds, so that we readily guess at what the laws are. Without such a natural prompting, having to search blindfold [sic] for a law which would suit the phenomena, our chance of finding it would be as one to infinity.162 Finally, this capacity to guess correctly is not only observable but testable. This is because il lume naturale is a rational instinct, as distinguished from both animal instincts such as the migration of birds or the hive building of bees and vegetative instincts such as the habit of plants to grow toward sunlight.163 Abductive inference is an act of insight [i.e. il lume naturale ].164 [It] is the provisional adoption of a hypothesis, because every possible consequence of it is cap able of experimental verifica tion, so that the persevering application of the same method ma y be expected to reveal its disagreement with facts, if it does so disagree.165 Clearly, Peirce has not abandoned the scientific method by referencing the capacity humans have for guessing correctly. The tendency to guess nearly right is itself the result of a similar experimental procedure.166 There is a rational aspect of il lume naturale. Reason and sentiment complement each other however this 161. CP 6.477. 162. CP 6.10. 163. CP 1.266. 164. CP 5.181. 165. CP 1.68. 166. CP 2.86.

PAGE 245

236 may conflict with Peirces position that se ntiment and instinct have no weight in theoretical matters.167 Peirce continually reminded us that instinct and sentiment are formed by unconscious mental processes which parall el their more voluntary and disciplined counterparts.168 Thus we come to the third of the dichotomies we will examine in this section, that which stands between consci ous and unconscious inference. Two claims, both from after 1902, illus trate the conflict. So the synechist will not believe th at some things are conscious and some unconscious, unless by consciousness be meant a certain grade of feeling.169 The term reasoning ought to be conf ined to such fixation of one belief by another as is reasonable, deliberate, self-controlled. A reasoning must be conscious; and this consciousness is not mere immediate consciousness, which (as I argued in 1868) is simple Feeling viewed from another side, but is in its ultimate nature (meaning in that characteristic element of it that is not reducible to anything simpler), a taking of a habit, or disposition to re spond to a given stimulus in a given kind of way.170 As weve seen, Peirce sometimes spoke of instinct as half-conscious inference171 and of a natural instinct for right reasoning,172 an innate theory of logic that he sometimes referred to as logica utens.173 Peirce also spoke of uncontrolled inference. All inferences are really performed under the influence of the law of association. But all psychi cal actions divide into two great classes, those 167. CP 1.634. 168. Ilona Kemp-Pritchard, Peirce on Ph ilosophical Hope and Logical Sentiment, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (Sept. 1981): 88. 169. CP 1.173. 170. CP 5.440. 171. CP 6.570. 172. CP 2.3. 173. CP 2.186.

PAGE 246

237 which are performed under the uncontrolled governance of association and those in which by the agency of consciousness, whatever that may mean, the actions come under self-cri ticism and self-control. The latter class of actions may be pronounced good or bad; the former could not be otherwise than they were. Uncontro lled inference from contiguity, or experiential connection, is the most rudimentary of all reasoning.174 As in the case of the dichotomous distincti on between theory and practice, Peirce appears in the second passage to be establishing an unbridgeable gap between controlled and uncontrolled inferences that again, like any gul f, stands in opposition to the principle of synechism. As weve also seen, there is c onsiderable vagueness in Peirces understanding of consciousness as linked to a certain grade of feeling.175 As he indicated in CP 6.133, all protoplasm, even an amoeba or slime-m ould, is capable of feeling and can thus be spoken of as possessing consciousness, if not personality. Yet there are passages where Peirce claims that there are inhibitions and cordinations that entirely escape consciousness.176 Peirce is guilty of having set up yet one more dualism in opposition to his synechism. If, as Peirce claims, reasoning is a species of deliberate, controlled action, then it follows that any conduct, including ment al action that is not distinctly conscious, such as instincts and percepts, is beyond contro l. If it is beyond cont rol, then it is beyond criticism. Reasoning is deliberate, voluntary, criti cal, controlled, all of which it can only be if it is done consciously. An unconscious act is involuntary: an involuntary act is not deli berate nor subject to cr iticism in the sense of approval or blame. A performance which cannot be called good or bad differs most essentially from reasoning.177 174. CP 7.444-445. 175. CP 6.173. 176. CP 5.533. 177. CP 2.182.

PAGE 247

238 As Wells observed, Behavior that is unconscious, and largely innate [i.e. instinct], thus falls outside the scope of normative science.178 As such, it would fall outside the bounds of pragmatism. Before declar ing Peirce hopelessly self-conflict ed, we will briefly return to his theory of self-controlled conduct as a possible strategy for mediating these dichotomies. E. Self-Control as a Synechistic Strategy Given the gulf that Peirce allows to stand between theo ry and practice and between the conscious and the unconscious in opposition to the theory of continuity, one is naturally directed to seek out a seamless, mediating prin ciple. Self-control presents itself as a candidate, inasmuch as it is, for Peirce, the woof and warp of pragmatism. Now the theory of Pragmaticism was originally based, as anybody will see who examines the papers of November 1877 and January 1878, upon a study of that experience of the phenomena of self-control which is common to all grown men and women; a nd it seems evident that to some extent, at least, it must always be so based. For it is to conceptions of deliberate conduct that Pragmaticism would trace the inte llectual purport of symbols; and deliberate conduct is self-controlled conduct. Now control may itself be controlled, criticism itself subjected to criticism; and ideally there is no obvious defin ite limit to the sequence. But if one seriously inquires whether it is possibl e that a completed series of actual efforts should have been endless or beginningless I think he can only conclude that this must be impossi ble. It will be found to follow that there are, besides perceptual j udgments, original (i.e. indubitable because uncriticized) beliefs of a ge neral and recurrent kind, as well as indubitable acritical inferences.179 At one end of the spectrum of self-control stands the fully developed human being. 178. Rulon S. Wells, Thirdness and Linguistics, in The Signifying Animal, eds. Imenegard Rausch and Gerald F. Carr (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980), 197. 179. CP 5.442.

PAGE 248

239 Man comes from the womb in actuality an animal little higher than a fish; by no means as high as a serpent. His humanity consists in his destination He becomes not actual man until he acquires self-control and then he is so in the measure of his self-control Mans existence qua man consists solely in his growing to act from rational selfcontrol.180 Besides defining human existence, the assu mption of rational self-control is what explains the continuity betw een our thoughts and our action s. Pragmatism rests on a series of hypothetical propositions, what Pe irce referred to as would-bes, which as Petry explains rest upon another assumption. On the antecedent side [of the conditional proposition] there are rules for behavior including rules pertaini ng to our thoughts and conduct in relation to an object. On the conseque nt side there are hypotheses about the laws governing the behavior of objects under the conditions resulting from our behavior. This method sugg ests that reasoning is subject to self-control. It only makes sense to propose conditional propositions if it is in our power to either make change s or to hold to a course of thought and action which will bear fruit in the future. Some habit of personal development and continuity is neces sary if future thoughts and conduct are to be either similar to those of the present or, more importantly for Peirce, the product of a deliberate, conscious and teleological growth.181 At the other end of the scale we begin, as Peir ce suggested, fish-like, with the inhibitions and cordinations that en tirely escape consciousness.182 While at Johns Hopkins in the early 1880s, Peirce joined his student, the psychologist Joseph Jastrow, in a series of e xperiments in which they hoped to show that very slight, imperceptible differences in se nsation might influen ce judgment. Peirce recorded their results in a paper for the National Academy of Sciences entitled, Small 180. MS 330. Quoted by Larry Holm es, Peirce on Self-control, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2 (Fall 1966): 113. 181. Edward S. Petry, Jr., Peirces Concept of Self-Control, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28 (Fall 1992): 683. 182. CP 5.533.

PAGE 249

240 Differences in Sensations.183 The experiments were deemed successful and one result was that Peirce ever after was convinced of the importance of unconscious mental processes.184 This conclusion was supported in Peirces review of James Principles of Psychology, written for The Nation .185 Murphey summarizes th e lengthy argument of that article. In 1891 Peirce wrote a review of James work in which he considered particularly the question, Is Perc eption Unconscious Inference?, and vigorously defended the thesis that it is. The distinction between conscious and unconscious inference, Peirce argues, is that between inferences recognized as being in ferences and inferences not so recognized. He then seeks to show how perception, and association in general, are inferential and do confor m to the forms of valid ampliative reasoning. Thus Peirce holds that all unconscious mental processes conform to the patterns of logic.186 While such inferences are beyond control and thus criticism, it was Peirces firm belief that they do, in fact, affect our judgments. We havent time to closely examine Peirces views of perception. His views of perception are, to say the least, obscure. Bernstein acknowledged that If we collected all of Peirces statements concerning percep ts, we would find not only conflicting approaches but explic it contradictions.187 He then goes on juxtapose two sets of remarks Peirce made on the subject during the years 1902-05 that are contradictory, some of which are included below. Sandra Rosentha l concurs with Bernst ein, that a cursory reading of Peirce seems to indicate that what he says about percep tion is both incomplete 183. CP 7.21-35. 184. Murray G. Murphey, The Development of Peirces Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), 360. 185. CP 8.64f. 186. Murphey, The Development of Peirces Philosophy, 360 187. Richard J. Bernstein, Pei rces Theory of Perception, in Studies of the Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce, 2nd Series, eds. Edward C. Moore and Richard S. Robin (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1964), 174.

PAGE 250

241 and inconsistent.188 What are of interest to us, however, are a few remarks that Peirce made that indicate, as Murphey suggests, that percepts and percep tual judgments have, like other unconscious mental pro cesses, some common features. While there is a record of Peirce maintaining the position that a percept contains only two kinds of elements, those of firstness and those of secondness,189 and that the percept is a single event happening hic et nunc [that] it cannot be generalized without losing its essential character,190 there are also indica tions that he saw percepts and, more precisely, perceptual judgments as not onl y the products of mental processes but containing elements of generality. Notwithstanding its apparent primitiven ess, every percept is the product of mental processes, or at all even ts of processes for all intents and purposes mental.191 The science of psychology assures me that the very percepts were mental constructions, not the first impressions of sense.192 No cognition and no Sign is absolutely precise, not even a Percept.193 While percepts or perceptual judgments all we know of the percept apart from the blow of it, the first judgment of a person as to what is before his senses194 are not, strictly speaking, part of the controlled, cognitive proc ess, they are, more broadly, involved in 188. Sandra Rosenthal, Peirces Pragmatic Account of Perception, in The Cambridge Companion to Peirce ed. Cheryl Misak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 193. 189. CP 7.630. 190. CP 2.146. 191. CP 7.624. 192. CP 2.141. 193. CP 4.542. 194. CP 7.643, 5.115.

PAGE 251

242 mental processes and neverthele ss contribute to the process of rational, self-controlled thought.195 Peirce made much of the distincti on between uncontrolled mental processes and inferences that come under self-criticism and self-control, the dist inction resting on the question of consciousness. Such [unconscious] inferences are beyond the jurisdiction of criticism. It is the part of psychology to explain as it can, as long as they are out of the focal plane of consciousness, they are out of our c ontrol; and to call them good or bad were idle. The ordi nary business of life is, however, best conducted without too much self-criticism. Quite otherwise is it with the actions which carry out our grander purposes. Here all must be volunt ary, thoroughly conscious, based on critical reflection. Logic is wanted he re, to pull inferences to pieces, to show whether they be sound or not, to advise how they may be strengthened, to consider by what methods they ought to proceed.196 While perception is itself unconscious, beyond criticism, and thus does not fall under the scrutiny of normative behavior, nevertheless i nquiry begins when percepts are forced upon us and is continuous with perceptual judgment through minutely incremental grades of increasing self-control.197 Percepts or perceptual judgment is the data of all knowledge.198 As weve seen, Peirce believed the ge neral elements of perceptual judgments to be the second cotary proposition of pragma tism. To demonstrate, Peirce pointed to a drawing that he borrowed from his father.199 It can be experienced as a serpentine line or 195. For Peirces understanding of the complex relationship between the percept, the perceptual judgment and what he terms the per cipuum, i.e., that which the percep t and the perceptual judgment form together, see CP 5.444 and 7.642. 196. CP 7.448f. 197. CP 5.553. 198. CP 8.300. 199. CP 5.183. See appendix.

PAGE 252

243 nd pon a wall but not as a dog or a seascape.200 This drawing demonstrates the phenomenon of similar well known figures. Larry Hickman agrees with Peirces interpretation. Looking at a duck-rabbit or face-vase, it is as if the perceiver gets tired or bored with seeing it one way, then switches ground and figure or sees the figure as rotate d. Once this is done, such switching may be a matter of control We ca n literally choose one percept over another.201 Peirce concluded that In all such visual illusions of wh ich two or three dozen are well known, the most striking thing is that a certain theory of interpretation of the figure has all the appearance of being given in perception. The first time it is shown to us, it seems as comp letely beyond the control of rational criticism as any percept is; but afte r many repetitions of the now familiar experiment, the illusion wears off, becoming first less decided, and ultimately ceasing completely. This shows that these phenomena are connecting links between abductions a nd perceptions. If the percept or perceptual judgment were of a natu re entirely unre lated to abduction, one would expect that the percept would be entirely free from any characters that are proper to interpretations.202 In fact, unless generality is given in perception it can never be known at all.203 Without the continuity of perception and conception, uncontrolled me ntal processes a self-regulated inferences, Peirce cannot argue, as he does, that Generality, Thirdness, pours in upon us in our very perceptual j udgments, and that all reasoning turns u 200. Patricia Ann Turrisi, Comme ntary, in Charle s Sanders Peirce, Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism (Albany, SUNY Press, 1997), 93. 201. Hickman, The Products of Pragmatism, 20. Incidentally, Peirces student, Joseph Jastrow was the first to draw attention to the duck-rabbit figure. See John F. Kihlstrom, Joseph Jastrow and his Duck or is it a Rabbit? see h ttp://socrates.berkeley.edu/ ~kihstrm /JastrowDuck.htm (accessed August 2008). 202. CP 5.184. 203. Murphey, The Development of Peirces Philosophy, 377.

PAGE 253

244 206 the perception of generality and continuity at every step204 He cannot hold to his claim that there is Thirdness in experience,205 and that the universe is perfused with signs. Peirces line between operations of the mind that can be controlled and those that cannot is not, as Bernstein points out, partic ularly sharp, no sharper for instance than the line marking off the conscious from the uncons cious. Peirce, for inst ance, contended that stimulating the nerves in the hind leg of a decapitated frog produces something very close to, if not in fact actual, reasoning. A decapitated frog almost reasons. The habit that is in his cerebellum serves as a major premiss. The exc itation of a drop of acid is his minor premiss. And his conclusion is the ac t of wiping it away. All that is of any value in the operation of ratioci nation is there, except only one thing. What he lacks is the pow er of preparatory mediation.207 Nevertheless, those mental operations that do not rise to the level of consciousness (including percepts and perceptual judgments) and are generally beyond control and criticism, lie outside the bounds of normativity and that, for Peirce, is the critical distinction. Man cannot really infer without having a notion of a class of possible inferences, all of which are logically good. That distinction of good and bad he always has in mind when he infers. Logic proper is the critic of arguments, the pronouncing them to be good or bad. There are, as I am prepared to maintain, operations of the mind which are logically exactly analogous to inferences excepting on ly that they are unconscious and therefore uncontrollable and therefore not subject to criticism. But that makes all the difference in the world; for inference is essentially deliberate, and self-controlled.208 204. CP 5.160. 205. Ibid. 206. CP 4.539. 207. CP 6.286 (emphasis added). 208. CP 5.108.

PAGE 254

245 This leads back to Wells concern regard ing behavior outside the bounds of normative science. Self-controlled thought is a species of purposive action that is directed toward ends provided by the normative sciences. If as Peirce claimed in 1903, the original wording of the pragmatic maxim, while admittedly awkward, was carefully crafted to show that he was speaking of mean ing in no other sense than that of intellectual purport and to avoid all danger of being unders tood as attempting to explain a concept by percepts, images, schemata, or by anything but concepts,209 then we are forced to conclude that the notion of unconscious inference is without real meaning. What follows is the serious question of whether Peirces theory of signs can be considered truly general. One is reminded of Peirces ongoi ng struggle to establish the reality of Thirdness. Among the linguistic devices used by Peirce to carry his readers with him to the higher reaches of generalit y, and perhaps to assist his ow n ascent, were almost, all but, virtual, and above all, quasi-, as in quasi-sign [ CP 5.473], quasi-mind [ CP 7.669], quasi-utterer [ CP 4.551], quasi-interpreter [ CP 4.551], and we might add, quasi-inference from percepts [ CP 8.149].210 Wells suggests that Peirces system might easily be emended in a way that would remove the restriction of inference to de liberate self-controlled conduct and enlarge its scope, but that would hardly support cl aims of adequacy and fruitfulness.211 Such an emendation would, however, put aside the quest ion Peirce struggled to answer: Where in the process of cognition does the possibility of controlling it begin?212 It is this 209. CP 5.402n3. 210. Fisch, Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism 360. 211. Wells, Thirdness and Linguistics, 197. 212. CP 5.115.

PAGE 255

246 broader notion of cognition that Colapietro holds is key a nd extends self-control beyond the strictures of consciousness and deliberation. Reasoning in the strict sense is th e essential, though not exclusive operation of the rational mind. Now, the rational mi nd is a species of the cognitive mind, its specific difference being the capacity to exert selfcontrol over some of its inferences We might say that the decapitated frog that responds to external stimuli thereby manifests a cognitive, but not a rational, mind. Recall that, for Pe irce, inference is essentially an interpretation of signs. Any agent capable of engaging in acts of interpretation (be these instinctual or learned, automatic or autonomous) possesses by virtue of this capacity, a cognitive mind. As we have seen, a rational mind is simply a cognitive mind that is capable of controlling some of its acts of inference and, as a result of this capacity, capable of controlling the formation of some of its habits.213 Certainly such a view is hinted at by Peirces grades of self -control that range from those that entirely escape consciousness to th e controlling of control by human agents, a capacity requiring the disposit ion toward moral rule that alone is provided by normative science.214 After declaring categorically that reasoning must be conscious, Peirce concluded that the secret of rational consciousness is not so much to be sought in the study of this one peculiar nucleolus, as in the review of the process of self-control in its entirety.215 Unfortunately, as in so many other instances, he never completed this review. 213. Colapietro, Peirces Approach to the Self, 110. 214. CP 5.533. 215. CP 5.440.

PAGE 256

247 Chapter Six Instinct, Emotion and Sentiment as Indispensable to Reason All human knowledge, up to the highest flights of science, is but the development of ou r inborn animal instincts. --Peirce, Collected Papers A. The Evolution of a Philosophical Role for Instinct The effect of Darwinism on th e development of Amer ican philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century was, to state the obvious, revolutionary. Charles Darwins theory suggested that the mind and its contents, no less than the living things it perceived, was integral to natu re and a product of the proce ss of natural selection. This idea profoundly affected Peirce and the pr agmatists, as Max Fisch points out. The crux of the theory of biological evolution was of course man, and the difficulty was not so much that of finding the links between the human organism and those of lower animals, as it was that of finding the links between animal instinct and human reason. Darwin made a beginning in those chapters of his Descent of Man devoted to comparison of the mental powers of man with those of lower animals, and to the development of the intellectual and moral faculties during primeval and civilized times. The na turalization of the human mind there begun was continued by the pragmatists.1 Writing in 1873, following a trip to England, where he had visited Darwin, Chauncey Wright, an original member of the Metaphysical Club, suggested that Epigraph. CP 2.754. 1. Max H. Fisch, Evolution in Am erican Philosophy, first printed in Philosophical Review 56 (1947): 357-373, included in Kenneth Laine Ketner and Christian J.W. Kloesel, eds., Peirce, Semeiotic, and Pragmatism: Essays by Max H. Fisch (Bloomington; Indiana University Press, 1986), 23.

PAGE 257

248 evolutionary theory was buttressed because it de monstrated that the historical distinction between instinct and intelligence was vague and artificial. For the distinction of instinct and intelligence, though not less real and important in the classification of actions in psycho-zoology, and as important even as that of animal a nd vegetable is in general zology, or the distinctions of organic and inorganic, living and dead, in the general science of life, is yet, like these, in its applications a vague and illdefined distinction Under the natura lists point of view, the contrasts of dead and living matters, inorga nic and organic products, vegetable and animal forms and functions, automatic and sentient movements, instinctive and intelligent motives and actions, are severally rough divisions of series, which are clearly enough contrasted in their extremities, but ill defined at their points of division.2 Peirce was among the first to affirm this va gueness in appropriati ng a philosophical role for instinct in his account of the development of mind and its continuity with nature. As he was fond of reminding his readers, the capacity of reason in humans reflects the minds affinity with nature and its continuity with the instincts of so-called lower animals. you cannot seriously think that every little chicken, that is hatched, has to rummage through all possible theories until it lights upon the good idea of picking up something and eating it. On the contrary, you think the chicken has an innate idea of doing this The chicken you say pecks by instinct. But if you are goi ng to think every poor chicken endowed with an innate tendency toward a positive truth, why should you think that to man alone this gift is denied? It is somehow more than a mere figure of speech to say that nature fecundates the mind of man with ideas which, when those ideas grow up, will resemble their father, Nature.3 Peirce often distinguished reas oning from instinct by claiming that reasoning differs from instinct only in be ing less reliable. 2. Charles Eliot Norton, Philosophical Discussi ons by Chauncey Wright with a Biographical Sketch of the Author (1877, repr., New York: Burt Franklin, 1971), 219-220. 3. CP 5.591.

PAGE 258

249 Every race of animals is provided with instincts well adapted to its needs, and especially to strengthen ing the stock. It is wonderful how unerring these instincts are. Man is no exception in this respect; but man is so continually getting himself into novel situations that he needs, and is supplied with, a subsidiary faculty of reasoning for bringing instinct to bear upon situations to which it does not directly apply. This faculty is a very imperfect one in respect to fallibility.4 Wright and Peirce were in agreem ent that the use of signs and symbols constitutes thought and explained the con tinuity of human in tellectual evolution.5 Peirce wrote in the late autumn of 1913, just months before his death, that [t]he word instinct itself is but a generalization of abstractions, one of the brood of language or of thought: there is no great difference between the two 6 As we have seen, Peirce was convinced that the so-called lower animals were also capable of sign usage and believed that they use language and exercise some minimal level of control over it.7 Evolution provided a framework for developing the continuity betw een instinct and intelligence. For Peirce, it is a force governing the machinations of mind, no less than organic species.8 Natural selection extends to the habits of mind, th e good or useful being approved and retained, the bad or errant being eliminated.9 Thus the species adapts becoming more reasonable. Peirce, however, took this all even on e step further like so many of his generation, extending it far beyond the scope of biologi cal organisms, to which Darwin 4. CP 6.497. 5. Philip Wiener, Evolution and the Founders of Pragmatism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 89. 6. MS 682, EP 2:473. 7. CP 5.534. 8. CP 2.86. 9. CP 2.189.

PAGE 259

250 had confined it, and thus tran smuting Darwinism into philosophy.10 To Peirces mind, evolution also provided a means for solving th e riddle of the universe, of bringing science and cosmology together. His entry for Pragmatic and Pragmatism in Baldwins Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology provided a snapshot of his vision. Almost everybody will now agree that the ultimate good lies in the evolutionary process in some way. If so, it is not in i ndividual reactions in their segregation, but in someth ing general or continuous. Synechism is founded on the notion that the coalescence, the becoming continuous, the becoming governed by laws, the becoming instinct with general ideas, are but phases of one and the same process of the growth of reasonableness. This is first show n to be true with mathematical exactitude in the field of logic, and is thence inferred to hold good metaphysically. It is not opposed to pragmatism in the manner in which C.S. Peirce applied it, but includes that procedure as a step.11 The idea dazzled and consumed him and Peirce spent most of the balance of his life employing it in an ultimately unfulfilled end eavor to erect a system of philosophy as comprehensive as that of Aristotle.12 Darwin provided a muse. In 1884, in a lecture on how the laws of nature might have evolved from pure chance, delivered to the Metaphysical Club at Johns Hopkins, he proclaimed Indeed, my opinion is only Da rwinism analyzed, generalized, and brought into the realm of Ontology.13 He believed that he was able to statistically generalize chance variation occurring in natural selection and account for the phenomenon of pure chance throughout the universe. 10. See Rulon S. Wells, The True Nature of Peirces Evolutionism, in Studies in the Philosophy of Charles S. Peirce, 2nd series (Amherst: University of Massach usetts Press, 1964), 304-322, where Wells charges Peirce with a methodological schizophrenia, in which he oscillates between the treatment of Darwinism as a testable scientific theory and as a philosophy. 11. CP 5.4. 12. CP 1.1. 13. EP 1:222.

PAGE 260

251 Explicability has no determinate & absolute limit. Everything being explicable, everything has been brought about; and consequently everything is subject to change and subject to chance. Now everything that can happen by chance, sometim e or other will happen by chance. Chance will sometime bring about a change in every condition Chance is indeterminancy, is freedom. But the action of freedom issues in the strictest rule of law.14 Changes wrought by the operations of ch ance were, for Peirce, founded upon the mathematical view of probabilities and the theory of the adaptation of the mind to the universe.15 He often pointed to the example of the operations of chance at the gaming table. Thus, if a million players sit down to bet at an even game, since one after another will get ruined, the av erage wealth of those who remain will perpetually increase. Here is indubitably a genuine formula of possible evolution, whether its operati on accounts for much or little in the development of animal and vegetable species.16 Peirce saw three elements chance, law and the tendency toward habit formation as isomorphic with his three categories.17 He enlarged Darwins theory that the law of heredity is subject to chance variation to include the metaphys ical assertion that it is the interplay of chance and law th at produces habit-taking. conformity to law exists only within a limited range of events and even there is not perfect, for an element of pure spontaneity or lawless originality mingles, or at least, mu st be supposed to mingle, with law everywhere. Moreover, conformity w ith law is a fact requiring to be explained; and since Law in genera l cannot be explained by any law in particular, the explan ation must consist in showing how law is developed out of pure chance, irregula rity, and indeterminancy Tell us how the laws of nature came about and we may distinguish in some 14. W 4:549, 552. 15. Charles Sanders Peirce, Johns Hopkins Circulars 1 (May 1881), 150, quoted by Wiener in Evolution and the Founders of Pragmatism 82. 16. CP 6.15; see also CP 1.396 where Peirce provides the ac tual calculations for this game of chance. 17. CP 1.409. See also Nathan Houser, The Essential Peirce eds .Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992), 1:245.

PAGE 261

252 measure between laws that might and laws that could not have resulted from such a process of development. To find that out is our task. I will begin with this guess. Uniformities in the modes of action of things have come about by their taking habits. At present, the course of events is approximately determined by law. In the past that approximation was less perfect. The tendency to obey laws has always been and always will be growing.18 Spontaneity was a word Peirce used as a synonym for chance, particularly as it pertained to actuality rather than possibility.19 For Peirce, spontaneity is life and it permeates the universe, manifesting itself in the evolutionary process. He claimed, By admitting pure spontaneity or life as a char acter of the universe, acting always and everywhere though restrained within narro w bounds by law, producing infinitesimal departures from law continuall y, and great ones with infin ite infrequency, I account for all the variety and diversity of the universe, in the only sense in which the really sui generis and new can be said to be accounted for.20 Peircean evolution emerged in th e instant of the univers es genesis. In his cosmogony, the laws of physics, the rules of logic, even Time, are antedated by the operation of pure chance with its consequent thorough-goi ng evolutionism.21 Tychism, the doctrine that absolute chance is a factor in the universe,22 was joined to his objective idealism, the theory of the univers e that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws,23 to forge his Synechism, that tendency of philosophical thought which insists upon the idea of continuity as of prime importance in 18. CP 1.407-8. 19. Douglas R. Anderson, Creativity and the Philosophy of C.S. Peirce (Dordrecht : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987), 103. 20. CP 6.59. 21. CP 6.163. 22. CP 6.201. 23. CP 6.25.

PAGE 262

253 Franklin, philosophy and, in particular, upon the n ecessity of hypotheses involving true continuity.24 In this way, Peirce believed he was ab le to demonstrate how the universe is evolving toward concrete reas onableness, spawning orderliness out of chaos, and, at the same time, attaining a hi gher grade of complexity. all the evolution we know of pro ceeds from the vague to the definite. The indeterminate future becomes the irrevocable past. In Spencers phrase the undifferentiated different iates itself. The homogeneous puts on heterogeneity. However it may be in special cases, then, we must suppose that as a rule the continuum has been derived from a more general continuum, a continuum of higher generality If this be correct, we cannot suppose that it bega n elsewhere than before logic, we cannot suppose that it began elsewher e than in the u tter vagueness of completely undetermined and di mensionless potentiality. The evolutionary process is, therefor e, not a mere evolution of the existing universe, but rather a process by wh ich the very Platonic forms themselves have become or are becoming developed.25 Wells indicates that one of the reasons Darwin appealed to Peirce wa s his belief that the operation of chance in natural selection resemb les statistical mechanics in the growth of order from chaos.26 As we saw earlier, this process of becoming ordered, this tendency to become continuous, to become governed by laws is the summum bonum Generalization, the spilling out of continuous systems, in thought, in sentiment, in deed, is the true end of life.27 In an 1891 letter to his former student, Christine LaddPeirce summarized his evolutionary cosmology. I may mention that my chief avocation in the last ten years has been to develop my cosmology. This theory is that the evolution of the world is hyperbolic that is, proceeds from one state of things in the infinite past, 24. CP 6.169. 25. Charles Sanders Peirce, Reasoning and the Logic of Things, ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 258. 26. Rulon S. Wells, The True Nature of Peirces Evolutionism, Charles Sanders Peirce, Reasoning and the Logic of Things, 316. See CP 5.364 where Peirce writes, T he Darwinian controversy is, in large part, a question of logic. Mr. Darwin proposed to apply the statistical method to biology. 27. NEM 4:346.

PAGE 263

254 to a different state of things in the in finite future. The state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the complete triumph of law and absence of spontaneity. Between these, we have on our side a state of things in which there is some abso lute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of habit.28 The wild cosmogonical speculation e ngaged in by Peirce notwithstanding, the only thing, he supposed, that we can ever hope to know of the universe and its development via the tendency toward habit-ta king is by applying scientific method to an artifact of its creation, the human mind. In doing this I am not much afraid of specializing too much and of assuming that the universe has char acters which belong only to nervous protoplasm in a complicated organism. For we must remember that the organism has not made the mind, but is only adapted to it. It has become adapted to it by an evolutionary proc ess so that it is not far from correct to say that the mind has made the organism.29 Another way Peirce had of stating this was hi s claim that the only thing we can know of the outer world is what is found in the inner world. In this, however, Peirce differentiated himself from his contemporar ies. I do not mean by the inner world that human consciousness which [James Mark] Baldwin and Royce have lately so forcibly reminded us is a social development and therefore very recent, only now in fact in process of taking a shape which has not yet been attained, he declared.30 For him, the structure of the mind and the structure of the universe were continuous. There are three categories of being; ideas of feelings, acts of reaction, and habits. Habits are either habits about ideas of feelings or habits about acts of reaction. The ensemble of all habits about ideas of feeling 28. CP 8.317. 29. NEM 4:141. 30. Ibid.

PAGE 264

255 constitutes one great habit which is a world; and the ensemble of all habits about acts of reaction constitu tes a second great habit, which is another world. The former is the Inner World, the world of Platos forms. The other is the Outer World, or universe of existence. The mind of man is adapted to the reality of being.31 That is why, he declared, I make strong to go to the human mind to learn the nature of a great cosmical element.32 There, in a time before Time, lay the origin of the distinction between the i nner and outer worlds. The accidental reaction awoke [the i nner world] into a consciousness of duality, of struggle and therefore of antagonism between an inner and an outer. Thus, the inner world was firs t, and its unity comes from that firstness. The outer world was seco nd. The social world was logically developed out of those two and the physiological structure of man was brought to forms adapted to that development.33 Beyond such conjecture there is, however, little to be learne d when it comes to the origin of habit. Even from the human mind we can only collect external information about habit. Our knowledge of its inne r nature must come to us from logic. For habit is generalization.34 Whether there was a tendency to take habi ts in the chaotic, original nothingness,35 or whether it evolved in the anta gonism of the two worlds, Peir ce is, admittedly, at a loss.36 He does, however, propose to understand the phenomenon in very human terms, in a passage written in 1902. 31. CP 4.157. 32. NEM 4:141. 33. Ibid. 34. NEM 4:142. 35. Anderson, Creativity and the Philosophy of C.S. Peirce 216. 36. Ibid., 102. W.B. Gallie rightly notes that such a conjecture, that the universe of pure chance was the source of the actual and of the tendency to take habits or the tendency toward generalization is fatal to his doctrine of the categories, each of which is universal. See W.B. Gaillie, Peirce and Pragmatism (New York: Dover Publications, 1966), 226ff.

PAGE 265

256 If I may be allowed to use the word habit, without any implication as to the time or manner in which it took bi rth, so as to be equivalent to the corrected phrase habit or disposition, that is, as some general principle working in a mans nature to determin e how he will act, th en an instinct, in the proper sense of the word, is an inherited habit, or in more accurate language, an inherited disposition. But since it is difficult to make sure whether a habit is inherited or is due to infantile training and tradition, I shall ask leave to employ the word instinct to cover both cases.37 This definition gives rise to a very interesting theory of ins tinct that, as much as anything else, can be considered the heart of Peir ces philosophy, for it encompasses the sum of his thought on many of the wide range of topics we have been exploring. Having thus assimilated instinct to ha bit, Peirces theory owes much to his heavy reliance on Jean-Baptiste Lamarcks belief in the capacity for the ge netic transmission of acquired characteristics.38 The Lamarckian theory s upposes that the development of species has taken place by a long series of in sensible changes, but it supposes that those changes have taken place during the lives of th e individuals, in consequence of effort and exercise, and that reproducti on plays no part in the proce ss except in preserving these modifications.39 Even so, Peirce left open the ques tion of whether habits are sexually transmitted from generation to generation. Nothing so characterizes instincts as their persistence when all the lights of reason are against them, and this whether they are true inherited instincts or merely traditional. Wellbred people, for example, are full of traditional habits prejudices, we call them about manners. They may be in situations in which reason warns them that these habits are distinctly injurious to them; and still they have a difficulty in overcoming them even with a serious effort.40 37. CP 2.170. 38. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Zoological Philosophy, translation of Philosophie zoologique, trans. Hugh Elliott (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), part 1, chapter 7, 106-127. 39. CP 6.16. 40. CP 2.160.

PAGE 266

257 At other times he distinguis hed non-inherited from inherite d instincts by referring to the former as sentiments.41 Sentiments were generally view ed by Peirce as being social in nature.42 This is clearly reflected in his postulation of three lo gical sentiments in his 1878 Illustration of the Logic of Science series: It may seem stra nge that I should put forth three sentiments, namely, interest in an indefinite community, recognition of the possibility of this interest being made supr eme, and hope in the unlimited continuance of intellectual activity, as indispen sable requirements of logic.43 Nevertheless, the lack of a reliable nomenclature is the source of cons iderable difficulty for the interpreter, as Maryann Ayim is forced to admit. In some passages, Peirce limits the term instinct to inherited habits, and uses the term sentiment to refer to non-inherited habits. Often, however, Peirce neglects to dist inguish between inherited and noninherited habits, in wh ich case the term instinct and sentiment are used interchangeably. Peirces failure to consistently retain this distinction leads to some confusion in his writing.44 In the next section we will do our best to address this confusion and come to a clearer understanding of Peirces theory of instinct and its role in inquiry and action, a theory that for William H. Davis binds together many of the doctrines we have been exploring. The continuity of signs, of all mental life, as it flows and tends to organize itself under more general heads, the evolution of physical laws, biological laws, and the life of the mind all this is tied together in a very provocative package.45 41. CP 1.661. 42. Maryann Ayim, Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry (Meerut, India: Anu Prakashan, 1982), 19. 43. CP 2.655. 44. Ayim, Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry 19. 45. William H. Davis, Peirces Epistemology (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1972), 122.

PAGE 267

258 B. Instinct, Habit and Inquiry While instinct is more or less subsumed in habit in CP 2.170, such is not entirely the case in every instance. While Peirce was generally unwilling to distinguish inherited from acquired instinct, he occasionally did so. Instinctive does not simply mean v ery much a matter of habit. Other reasonings, although not exactly instinc tive, have become so habitual as to resemble instinctive actions. In many cases, the habits have come to us from tradition.46 Peirce recalled an incident from his childhood by way of illustration. I well remember when I was a boy, and my brother Herbert, now our minister at Christiana, was scarce more than a child, one day, as the whole family were at table, some spirit from a blazer, or chafingdish, dropped on the muslin dress of one of the ladies and was kindled; and how instantaneously he jumped u p, and did the right thing, and how skillfully each motion was adapted to the purpose. I asked him afterward about it; and he told me that sin ce Mrs. Longfellows death [in 1861, in a similar accident], it was that he had often run over in imagination all the details of what ought to be done in such an emergency. It was a striking example of a real habi t produced by exercises in the imagination.47 In this section we will briefly examine to what degree Peirce intended the identity of instinct and habit. We will also investigate the relation of habit and belief and how both relate to inquiry. This will entail some understanding of Peir ces theory of inquiry, some of which we have studied in previous chapte rs but other parts of which are yet uncharted. We will conclude with a fuller investigation of Peirces classification of instincts in which he demonstrates the evolution of instinct and its development into reason 46. MS 693a, 20, undated. Quoted in Ayim, Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry 109. 47. CP 5.487n1.

PAGE 268

259 ious Very near the end of his life, Peirce identified the reasoning power of human beings with the instinctive nature of ants and wasps.48 So far from being dissociated from instinct and sentiment, human reasoning is essentially the ex ercise of unconsc instinct. Reason is of its very essence egotis tical. In many matters it acts the fly on the wheel. Do not doubt that the bee thinks it has a good reason for making the end of its cell as it does. But I should be very much surprised to learn that its reason had solved th at problem of isoperimetry that its instinct has solved. Men many times fancy that they act from reason when, in point of fact, the reasons they attribute to themselves are nothing but excuses which unconscious instinct invents to satisfy the teasing whys of the ego The extent of this self-delusion is such as to render philosophical rationalism a farce. Reason, then, appeals to sentiment in the last resort.49 As we have noted, Peirce held a strong belief in the minds inherent insight into the ways of nature by virtue of its evolved structure. Man has a certain Insight, not stro ng enough to be oftener right than wrong, but strong enough not to be overwhelmingly more often wrong than right, into the Thirdnesses, th e general elements, of Nature. An Insight, I call it, because it is to be referred to the same general class of operations to which Perceptive Judgme nts belong. This Faculty is at the same time of the general nature of Instinct, resembling the instincts of the animals in its so far surpassing the general powers of our reason and for its directing us as if we were in possession of facts that are entirely beyond the reach of our senses. It re sembles instinct too in its small liability to error; fo r though it goes wrong oftene r than right, yet the relative frequency with which it is right is on the whole the most wonderful thing in our constitution.50 Even the description of a theory or an idea as reasonable often seem s to have less to do with the ratiocination involved in arriving at it than it does with the feeling or intuition of reasonableness that accompanies it. 48. EP 2:464. 49. CP 1.631-2. 50. CP 5.173.

PAGE 269

260 If you ask an investigator why he does not try this or that wild theory, he will say, It does not seem reasonable. It is curious that we seldom use this word where the strict logic of our procedure is clearly seen. We do [not] say that a mathematical erro r is not reasonable. We call that opinion reasonable whose onl y support is instinct.51 We shall return to this inte resting aspect of in stinct in our treatm ent of abduction. Instinct is acquired in the de velopment of the human species.52 It originates in the work of the categories. the categories suggest our looking for a synthetizing law; and this we find in the power of assimilation, inci dent to which is the habit-taking faculty. This is all the categories pr etend to do. They suggest a way of thinking; and the possibility of science depends upon the fact that human thought necessarily partakes of whatever character is diffused through the whole universe, and that its natu ral modes have some tendency to be the modes of action of the universe.53 Like the rest of the universe, including its governing laws, Instinct is capable of development and growth, though the process is quite slow.54 Our instinctive ways of thinking have become adapted to ordinary prac tical life, just as the rest of our physiology has become adapted to our environment.55 As we have already seen, instinct and reason are continuous with reason bei ng an evolutionary outgrowth of instinct, as much as the contrary could be argued from observation.56 Peirce associated instinct with pure feelings of sensation without identifying the two. Despite sometimes speaking of instinctive feelings ( CP 1.107, 2.170), instinctive desires ( CP 1.584), and instinctive attraction (CP 5.64), it is clear from the rest of his 51. CP 5.174. 52. Davis, Peirces Epistemology 120. 53. CP 1.351. 54. CP 1.648. 55. CP 7.606. 56. CP 7.380.

PAGE 270

261 writings that Peirces pref erred view was that instin cts, like emotion, perception, sensation, attention, action, hab it and inquiry, are semiotic pr ocesses, that is, they are representational.57 In other instances instinct is to be understood in terms of original, indubitable or natural beliefs ( CP 5.445, 5.498, 5.603, respectively). David Savan identifies the occurrence of the indubitable in Peirces writings as a class of things belonging to a paradisiacal, simple nave, pre-critical universe.58 He lists three species of indubitable, the second of which consists of those things which are entirely too vague to be doubted. Here he includes instincts, mo ral sentiments, and common sense judgments. Peirce demonstrated the indeterminacy of ins tinct by defining it in that broad sense in which it will include all habits of which we are not prepared to render an account, or in one word, all that goes by the name of the rule of thumb.59 As such, he says, instincts are habits of unknown parentage60 that are accepted uncritical ly. This fact, however, should not deter us in our investigation. Because of the vagueness he attached to his understanding of instinct and hi s apparent reticence to carve at the joint of instinct and habit, following his lead in CP 2.170, we shall treat instinct as habit, without regard to its origin, save where Peirce has made a distinction. As a rule of thumb, i.e., a practical rule, based on neither science nor prec ision, and belonging to a precritical world, instinct is, nevertheless, inferential, if not someth ing of which we are even half-conscious.61 At 57. David Savan, Peirce and Idealism, in Kenneth Laine Ketner, ed., Peirce and Contemporary Thought (New York: Fordham University Press, 1995), 322; and Abduction and Semiotics, in The Signifying Animal: The Grammar of Language and Experience, eds. Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980), 255. 58. David Savan, Decision and Knowledge in Peirce, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1 (1965): 31-35. 59. CP 2.175. 60. Ibid. 61. CP 4.631, 6.570.

PAGE 271

262 times, particularly in regard to abductive inference, Peirce appears to have come close to blurring the line between logic and psychology. He referred to the instinct of abduction in psychological language as an insight ( CP 5.173 5.604), a feeling (CP 5.643) and as a flash (CP 5.181), and explained that it belongs to the same general class as perceptual judgments ( CP 5.173), that, in fact, abductive inferen ce shades into perceptual judgment without any line of sharp demarcation ( CP 5.181). But as we have seen, perceptual judgments contain general elements that allow universal propositions to be inferred from them ( CP 5.181) providing the means by which we divine the ways of nature ( CP 5.173). In 1902, he offered the following apology fo r the psychological content of his descriptions. After the main conceptions of logic have been well settled, there can be no serious objection to relaxing the severity of our rule excluding psychological matter, observations of how we think and the like But while the justice of this must be adm itted, it is also to be borne in mind that there is a purely logical doctrin e of how discovery must take place In addition to this, there may be a psychological account of the matter, of the utmost importance an d ever so extensive I may here and there make such use of it as I can in aid of my doctrine.62 We shall explore this distinction further in the next section dealing with abduction. As we have noted, Peirce linked human instinct to the flight and migration of birds, the hive building of bees and the colonizing of soci al insects. In addition to animal and human instinct, Peirce indicated a third variety that he called ve getable instinct but said very little about.63 Presumably, vegetable instinct indi cates the habit of green plants to grow toward sunlight and the adaptation of carnivorous plants such as the Venus flytrap. Peirce commented parenthetically that both [animal and vegetable instinct], 62. CP 2.107. 63. CP 1.266.

PAGE 272

263 especially the latter, throw much light on mans nature,64 but he never explicitly said how. In an obscure passage from around 1902 en titled Of the Practical Sciences, Peirce wrote. An animal instinct is a natural disp osition, or inborn determination of the individuals Nature (his nature being that wi thin him which causes his behaviour to be such as it is), ma nifested by a certain unity of quasipurpose in his behaviour. In man, at least, this behaviour is always conscious, and not purely spasmodic. More than that, unless he is under some extraordinary stress, the behavi our is always partially controlled by the deliberate exercise of imagina tion and refexion; so much so that to the man himself his action appears to be entirely rational, so far is it from being merely sensori-motor. General analogy and many special phenomena warrant the presumption that the same thing is true of the lower animals, though they are undoubtedly far less reflective than men. Yet the adaptation of the behaviour to its quasi-purpose in some definite part overleaps all control So then the three essential characters of instinctive conduct are that it is conscious, is determined to a quasipurpose, and that in definite re spects it escapes all control.65 He was convinced that animals do r eason, though perhaps, very little.66 In an undated manuscript from around 1911, Peirce asserted, on ce again, that a false dichotomy exists between reason and instinct, that animals do r eason and presented illustrations with little elaboration.67 As we saw in chapter four, reasoning is related to the higher levels of selfcontrol and thus to self-consciousness. Anim al instinct, as such, is in some manner uncontrolled inference. Uncontrolled inference from contigu ity, or experiential connection, is the most rudimentary of all reason ing. The lower animals so reason. A dog, when he hears his masters voice, runs expecting to see him; and if he does not find him, will manifest surprise, or, at any rate, perplexity.68 64. Ibid. 65. CP 7.381n19. 66. CP 1.626. 67. MS 672. See Richard S. Robin, An Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce (Amherst: The University of Ma ssachusetts Press, 1967), 85. 68. CP 7.445.

PAGE 273

264 And yet, on other occasions, Peirce made it a ppear that there was much more to the reason of those whom we are so fond of referring to as th e lower animals69 than what we might think of as conditioned response. Writing in 1902, Peirce noted that his dog was capable of a level of reas oning as complex as to consist of a triplicity of relations. I tell my dog to go upstairs and fetc h me my book, which he does. Here is a fact about three things, my self, the dog, and the book, which is no mere sum of facts relating to pairs, nor even a pairing of such pairs. I speak to the dog. I mention the book. I do those things together. The dog fetches the book. He does it in consequence of what I did. That is not the whole story. I not only simultaneously spoke to the dog and mentioned the book, but I mentioned the book to th e dog; that is, I caused him to think of the book and to bring it. My relation to the book was that I uttered certain sounds which were understood by the dog to have reference to the book. What I di d to the dog, beyond exciting his auditory nerve, was merely to induce him to fetch the book. The dogs relation to the book was more prom inently dualistic ; yet the whole significance and intention of his fetching it was to obey me. In all action governed by reason such genui ne triplicity will be found.70 What appears to us as the occult nature of animal instinct seems to have more to do with the differences in our modes of perception than with the kinds of feelings produced, which, in the final analysis are communicab le not only between members of the same species but at times between human and non-human animals. As for the senses of my dog, I must confess that they seem very unlike my own, but when I reflect on how small a degree he thinks of visual images, and of how smells play a part in his thoughts and imaginations analogous to the part played by sights in mine, I cease to be surprised that the perfume of roses or of orange flowers does not attract his attention at all and that the effluvia th at interest him so much, when at all perceptible to me, are simply unpleasa nt. He does not think of smells as sources of pleasure and disgust but as sources of information I know very well that my dogs musical feel ings are quite similar to mine though they agitate him more than they do me. He has the same 69. CP 1.626. 70. CP 2.86.

PAGE 274

265 emotions of affection as I, though they are far more moving in his case. You would never persuade me that my horse and I do not sympathize, or that the canary bird that takes such delight in joking with me does not feel with me and I with him; and this instinctive confidence of mine that it is so, is to my mind evid ence that it really is so.71 This brings us to the question of the role of instinct. In one of the last of his writings on the subject, Peirce further refined his thinking about instinct. I should define what I mean by an instinct as a way of voluntary acting prevalent almost universally among otherwise normal individuals of at least one sex or other unmistaka ble natural part of a race which action conduces to the probable perpetuation of that race, and which, in the present state of science, is no t at once satisfactorily and fully explicable as a result of any mo re general way of mental action.72 Peirce contended that there are essentially two kinds of instin cts. One he referred to as selfish ( CP 7.383) and the other as social ( CP 7.378). Both types include inherited and non-inherited instincts. Both are aimed at preservation of the species whether through preserving the individual in whom the instin ct acts, on the one hand, or by preserving some other individual or individuals than the agent, on the other hand.73 While selfish instincts are geared to the in terests and survival of the individual, in many cases, the social instincts are expensive to the indi vidual, even dangerous, sometimes fatal.74 The useful arts (e.g., food gathering, tool-making, agriculture, and medicine) have developed from the selfish instincts.75 The social instincts led to the development of reason.76 We will return to this distinction la ter in the chapter. At all even ts, all instinct is acquired in the development of the race as an adaptation to nature and conditions in the environment. 71. CP 1.314. 72. EP 2:464. 73. CP 7.378. 74. Ibid. 75. Ibid. 76. CP 7.384.

PAGE 275

266 To the end of preserving the species, instinct s, whether of the self ish or social variety, guide and assist the reasoning process. As Davis points out, It is a cornerstone of Peirces philosophy that human instincts, so fa r as they bear on judgment as well as on action are far from pernicious in thei r influence, but positively helpful.77 In our treatment of abduction, we will see how instinct is applied to the reasoning process and promotes the preservation and wellbeing of the human species. To the extent that instinct is a mode of voluntary mental action aimed at the perpetuation of the species ( EP 2:464 above), it is purposive action and thus very closely tied to pragmatism and the fixati on of belief. In 1905, he wrote: [The pragmatists] doctrine essentially insists upon the close affinity between thinking in particular a nd endeavour in general. Since, therefore, action in general is largely a matter of instinct, he will be pretty sure to ask himself whethe r it be not the sa me with belief.78 Three years later, in a piece entitled A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God for the Hibbert Journal ,79 Peirce underscored his point in the context of his critical common-sensism. man, like any other animal, is gi fted with power of understanding sufficient for the conduct of life. This brings him, for testing the hypothesis, to taking hi s stand upon Pragmaticism, which implies faith in common sense and in instinct, though only as they issue from the cupel-furnace of measured criticism.80 While Peirce often asserted that instinct is prone to error in theoretical matters ( CP 1.404, 1.634, 5.592), and made it clear that in pr actical affairs instinct was nearly 77. Davis, Peirces Epistemology 63. 78. CP 5.499. 79. C. S. Pierce, A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God, Hibbert Journal 7 (1908): 90112. 80. CP 6.480.

PAGE 276

267 habit. Again, Peirces retrospective essay on prag matism traced the biological, as well as the psychological aspects of inquiry. as arly in lly directed toward the removal of stimulation.83 In that same issue of the American Journal of Mathematics he had written: infallible (CP 1.633, 1.661), the conduct of life is more than the sum of that which he termed practical in nature. Th e production of belief, the amp lification of meaning, and the establishment of a habit which, for Peirce, are the essence of pragmatism, are as rooted in theory as in practical effects. Beli efs are of the nature of habits ( CP 2.643) that is, habits of which we are conscious (CP 4.53) and, as such, are dispositions to certain kinds of conduct.81 The production of belief clearly has a psychological aspect. We have noted that in his Popular Science series of 1877-8, Peirce articulated the position that he refined over the years but from which he never essentially wavered. And what, then, is belief? It is the demi-cadence which closes a musical phrase in the symphony of our intellectual life. We have seen that it has just three properties: First, it is so mething that we are aware of; second, it appeases the irritation of doubt; and, third, it involves the establishment in our nature of a ru le of action, or, say for short, a 82 It is no doubt true that men act, especially in the action of inquiry, if their sole purpose were to produce a certain state of feeling, in the sense that when that state of feeling is attained, there is no further effort It was upon that proposition that I originally based pragmaticism In the case of inquiry, I called that stat e of feeling firm belief E 1880, in the opening paragraphs of my memoir in Vol. III of the American Journal of Mathematics I referred the matter to the fundamental properties of protoplas m, showing that purposive action must be action virtua 81. Peirce appears to have changed his mind on this point. In CP 5.417 he says: Belief is not a momentary mode of consciousness; it is a habit of mind essentially enduring for some time, and mostly (at least) unconscious [1905]. 82. CP 5.397. 83. CP 5.563.

PAGE 277

268 Thinking, as cerebration, is no doubt subject to the ge neral laws of nervous action. When a group of nerv es are stimulated, the ganglions with which the group is most intimately connected on the whole are thrown into an active state, which in turn usually occasions movements of the body. The stimulation conti nuing, the irritati on spreads from ganglion to ganglion (usually increa sing meantime). When the stimulus is withdrawn, the excitement quickly subsides. Now, all vital processes tend to become easier on repetiti on. Along whatever path a nervous discharge has once taken place, in that path a new discharge is more likely to take place Hence, a strong habit of responding to the given irritation in this particular wa y must quickly be established.84 Habits thus established ar e dispositions to action. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a condition that we shall behave in some cer tain way, when the occasion arises. Doubt has not the least such active e ffect, but stimulates us to inquiry until it is destroyed.85 Thus purpose of inquiry is, then, to settle doubt by replacing it with belief which is conscious (or semi-conscious) ha bit. Carl Hausman correctly points out that with the understanding that belief is of the na ture of habit, that for Peirce: [t]he term belief can be understood in at leas t two senses: psychological and logical or ontological According to the first sense, a belief is a subjective or behavioral process. Ac cording to the second, it is, or is interpretable as, a proposition, or as an ontological referent. In this latter sense, it is a regularity in thinking, a disposition to envisage regularities in consequences that follow from the thought and that are objective in relation to psychological acts. Thus, in this logical-ontological sense, belief is a type of process that is not reduced to actual mental states or events, but is an objective conditi on that mental, habitual acts exemplify.86 When we turn our attention to abduction we will see how the two senses of belief in Peirce have been a sticking poi nt for his interpreters. 84. CP 3.155-7. 85. CP 5.373. 86. Carl R. Hausman, Charles S. Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 25.

PAGE 278

269 Generally speaking, inquiry is the methodology of the natural sciences and, as such, is a process that involves each of the three types of inference. Before inquiry can commence, however, three conceptions are ne cessary. The first is a reference to a quality, the second to a subject, and the third to a mediator interpreting predicate quality and subject correlate to one another.87 These, of course, are the three categories. According to Savan, three conditions (component s really) are also ne cessary for inquiry. The first condition for inquiry is a precritical and unexamined world, environment or neighborhood. Second, some hard fact enters this innocent and artless world, raises a real doubt concerning some determinate part of it, and sets investigation in motion. Third, the movement of investigation is termin ated by a critically evaluated and permanently affirmed belief.88 The actual process of inquiry unfolds in stages that parallel the three categories which, in turn, are for Peirce, omnipresent in the uni verse. Thus empirical logic mirrors the operation of the mind which, as a product of evolution, mirrors the operation of nature. As K.T. Fann describes the actual pr ocess of inquiry, The three types of inference now become three stag es in a scientific inquiry. They are intimately connected as a method.89 Peirce begins his account of this method by stating that every inquiry takes place in one of the thr ee universes of experience ( CP 6.469), by which he means any one of the three states of being: Pote ntiality, Brute Actualit y, or Representation ( CP 6.455) 87. David Savan, Decision and Knowledge in Peirce, in Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1 (1965): 36-7. 88. Ibid., 37. 89. K.T. Fann, Peirces Theory of Abduction (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970), 32.

PAGE 279

270 The first stage of inqui ry is conjecture or hypothesis. Every inquiry whatsoever takes its ri se in the observation of some surprising phenomenon, some experi ence which either disappoints an expectation, or breaks in upon some habit of expectation of the inquisiturus The inquiry begins with pondering these phenomena in all their aspects, in th e search of some point of view whence the wonder shall be resolved At length a conjecture arises that furnishes a possible Explanation On account of this Explanation, the inquirer is led to regard his conjecture, or hypothe sis, with favor. As I phrase it, he provisionally holds it to be Plaus ible Plausibility, I reckon as composing the First Stage of Inquiry Its characteristic formula of reasoning I term Retroduction, i.e., reasoning from consequent to antecedent.90 The second stage of inquiry cons ists in testing the hypothesis. This testing, to be logically va lid, must honestly start, not as Retroduction starts, with scrutiny of the phenomena, but with examination of the hypothesis This constitutes the Second Stage of Inquiry. For its characteristic form of reasoning our language has, for two centuries, been happily provided with the name Deduction The purpose of Deduction [is] that of collecting consequents of the hypothesis 91 Having gathered the consequents, they too must be tested. The inquiry enters upon its Third Stag e, that of ascertaining how far those consequents accord with Expe rience, and of judging accordingly whether the hypothesis is se nsibly correct or requ ires some inessential medication, or must be entirely rejected. Its characteristic way of reasoning is Induction.92 This stage of inquiry is itself trifurcated. For it must begin with Classifica tion, which is an Inductive Nonargumentational kind of Argument, by which general Ideas are attached to objects of Experience; or rather by which the latter are subordinated to the former. Following this will come the testing-argumentations, the Probations; and the whole inquiry wi ll be wound up with the Sentential part of the Third Stage, which, by Inductive reasonings, appraises the 90. CP 6.469. 91. CP 6.470, 472. 92. CP 6.472.

PAGE 280

271 different Probations singly, then th eir combinations, then makes selfappraisal of these very appraisals themselves, and passes final judgment on the whole result.93 Peirce wished us to observe that neith er Deduction nor Induction contributes the smallest positive item to the final conclusion of the inquiry.94 Peirce, at the apex of his eloquence, continued by claiming: Deduction explicates; Induc tion evaluates: that is all. Over the chasm that yawns between the ultimate goal of science and such ideas of Mans environment as, coming over him during his primeval wand erings in the forest, while yet his very notion of error was of the vaguest, he managed to communicate to some fellow, we are building a cant ilever bridge of induction, held together by scientific struts and ties. Yet every plank of its advance is first laid by Re troduction alone, that is to say, by spontaneous conjectures of instinc tive reason and neither Deduction nor Induction contributes a single ne w concept to the structure.95 It is to retroduction (abduction) as the inte rsection of insight and inference to which we shall turn later in this chapter. As we noted in our study of the clas sification of the sciences, one reason Peirce had for classifying anything was his view th at classification is the very business of science, especially logic, the science dearest to his heart. This motivation led him to attempt a classification of th e instincts as a way of treat ing psychology in its proper relationship to the other sciences and to dem onstrate that in additi on to the psychological aspects of human instinct, there is a logi cal dimension as well. There was, however, another motivation at work, one that even antedated pragmatism. In 1905, he wrote, Another doctrine which is involved in Pragmaticism as an essential consequence of it, but which the writer defended before [1871] he had formulated, even in his own mind, the principle of pragmaticism, is the 93. Ibid. 94. CP 6.475. 95. Ibid.

PAGE 281

272 scholastic doctrine of realism. This is usually defined as the opinion that there are real objects that are general, among the number being the modes of determination of existent singulars, if, indeed, these be not the only such objects. But the belief in this can hardly escape being accompanied by the acknowledgement that there are, besides, real vagues, and especially real possibilities.96 Peirce continued by explaining that his 1878 formulation of pragmatism came very close to denying what for him was this essential realism. The article of January 1878 [How to Make Our Ideas Clear] endeavored to gloze over this point as unsuited to the exoteric public addressed; or perhaps the writer wavered in his ow n mind. He said that if a diamond were to be formed in a bed of cotton-wool, and were to be consumed there without ever having been pressed upon by any hard edge or point, it would be merely a question of nomenclature whether that diamond should be said to be have been hard or not. No doubt this is true, except for the abominable falsehood in the word MERELY, implying that symbols are unreal. Nomenclature involves classification; and classification is true or false, and the generals to which it refers are either reals in the one case or figments in the other.97 Thus, in 1902, Peirce turned his attention to what he called a classificatory psychonosy or psychotaxy within which he located the instin cts, the latter admittedly not a very good name for classificatory psychognosy or the study of kinds of ment al manifestation,98 and used only for the sake of brevity.99 Psychotaxy was comprised of two Suborders (I) Kinds of Performance [or perhaps Faculties], broadly construed to incl ude actions that are simple and involuntary, and (II) Kinds of Individuals. Under the form er there are two genera (A) Elements of Performance and (B) Systems of Performance, the former being subdivided into (A1) kinds of sensations and their relations and (A2) kinds of emotions and their relations. 96. CP 5.453. 97. Ibid. 98. CP 1.271. 99. CP 7.378.

PAGE 282

273 Under (B) Systems of Performan ce, Peirce included two subgene ra (B1) those that are at the instinctive stage of development and ge nerally associated with brutes and lower animals, being comprised of inborn performance determined in almost every detail. These instincts are thus divide d, as we have seen, between t hose that are associated (a) with the preservation of the stock, or an indi vidual or individuals other than the agent, and those that are associated (b) with the pr eservation of the indivi dual agent. The first species he terms social, and the second he terms selfish. Under the preservation of the stock he listed several orders of instinct as being reproduction, communication (the cries and s ongs of mammals and bi rds and the facial expressions of mammals), and architectural instinct, related to shelter, e.g., the construction of cobwebs. Peirce also menti oned instincts for locomotion and migration, instincts for games and instincts for ador nment and decoration (sometimes, but not always related to reproduction, e.g., the delight of a horse with a handsome harness or the pride of the freshly trimmed poodle). A second subfamily (B2) under Systems of Performance is rela ted to systems in minds that are too highly developed for much wealth of Instinct ( CP 7.380). As Peirce explained in a lengthy section on the rational mind, it was his opinion that the instinctive mind could probably not have developed in to the rational mind because the rational minds capacity for growth seems to make it appear more undeveloped than the instinctive mind.100 It is its immaturity and capacity fo r growth, and thus for error, that distinguishes the rational mind from the instinctive mind. Animals rarely make mistakes while humans often err. Peirce surmised that rational mind might well be a case of an 100. CP 7.380.

PAGE 283

274 arrested development of instinctive mi nd. However, only through the resilience and flexibility that is manifest in immaturity could the rational mind be suited for the tremendous development of which it is capable. The conception of the Rational Mind as an Unmatured Instinctive Mind which takes another development pr ecisely because of its childlike character is confirmed, not only by the prolonged childhood of men, but also by the fact that all systems of rational performances have had instinct for their first germ. Not only has instinct been the first germ, but every step in the development of those systems of performance comes from instinct. It is precisely because this Instinct is a weak, uncertain Instinct that it becomes infinitely plastic, and never reaches an ultimate state beyond which it cannot progress. Uncertain tendencies, unstable states of equilibrium are conditions sine qua non for the manifestations of Mind.101 Instinctive mind is governed by au tomatic rather than reasoned response; it is by nature decidedly unreflective and inert. But, according to Peirce, this is the seed of progress. As we will see, instinct serves to guide the mind by putting it on the right scent.102 Before setting aside the business of psychotaxy, the work of Maryann Ayim, who compiled an exhaustive list of instincts from the published and unpublished writings of Peirce, should be mentioned.103 She has catalogued the instincts of animals and humans under ten separate categories and included any examples provided by Peirce. This remarkable work appears as Appendix C. C. Reason and Instinct Peirces classification of the instin cts reveals the separate development of reason from the germ of instinct. In addition to what he said in the psychotaxy regarding rational 101. CP 7.381. 102. Davis, Peirces Epistemology 120. 103. Ayim, Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry 23-25.

PAGE 284

275 mind as a case of the arrested development of instinctive mind, Peirce held a variety of other positions on the relations hip between reason and instin ct, opinions that appear on the surface to be contradictory. Briefly, as Ayim showed, those positions can be summarized as follows. Instinct evolves, albeit more slow ly than reason, and its development is toward reason as it moves toward infini te plasticity and increasing fallibility. As Ayim observes, reason is an evolutionary development of inst inct in that man, as a rational animal, has gradually evolved from non -rational forms of life.104 She points out that within this context, instinct and reason are continuous. However, as we noted in chapter three, it is Wells observation that If something, x has evolved, it must have evolved from what it is not; from nonx in other words.105 A common view is th at judgment evolved from feeling just as reason ev olved from instinct. Peirce sometimes uses the evolutionary term rudimentary The more or less synonymous term low-grade is not distinctively evolutionary, but if evolution is upward ascent, then labeling of x as low-grade y would suggest that the relation between x and y if conceived evolutionarily, is to be co nceived as the evolution of x into y (= evolution of y from x ). To decide, however, that in that situation y is the paradigm to which x is to be assimilated is to take a further step. Peirce takes this step but it is one of my aims to argue that the step is arbitrary, i.e., that one might as reasonably have taken some other step.106 Weve noted that one of Wells chief criticisms of Peirce centers on what he takes to be a tendency to over-generalize. Peir ces ambitious attempt to demonstrate the continuity of reason and instinct is perhaps anothe r example even though, as we saw in CP 5.533, he 104. Ibid., 17. 105. Rulon S. Wells, Peirces Notion of the Symbol, Semiotica 19 (1977), 200. 106. Ibid., 201.

PAGE 285

276 subsumes both under the mediating principle of self-control, the varying degrees of which provide the biggest difference between species. As we saw in the classification of in stincts, Peirce viewed reason as one of the types or subdivisions of instinct. While cl osely related to the view of reason as an evolutionary development of instinct, he expressed the opinion that reason might be a case of inchoate instinct, s uggesting that reason might actu ally be an instance of the arrested development in the evolution of instinct. This represents a second position of the relationship of instinct and reason. A third view that Peirce expressed wa s that reason and instinct are completely distinct faculties. In some of hi s writings he asserted that in stinct had little or nothing to do with theoretical matters and was only relia ble and useful in practical matters. This opinion is largely confined to the first of his Cambridge lectures of 1898. As we saw in the last chapter, the correspondence between William James and Peirce leading up to this lecture series provides a clue for the title of that first lecture, Vitally Important Topics. After reading the lecture which Peirce first proposed, James was apprehensive over the emphasis Peirce had given to formal logic. James told Peirce that he and Royce both agree there were only three men at Harvard who could possibly follow your graphs and relatives. James, who as a close friend of Peirce had obtained the lectureship for him, counseled Peirce to be a good boy a nd think a more popular plan out, suggesting that he might consider de aling with separate topics of a vitally important character.107 Peirces response was grudgingly compliant, co ndescending and dripping with sarcasm. I have no doubt you gauge the capac ity of your students rightly People who cannot reason exactly (which alone is reasoning), simply cannot understand my philosophy, neither the process, methods, nor 107. Richard L. Trammell, Religion, Instinct and Reason in the Thought of Charles S. Peirce, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 8 (1972): 7.

PAGE 286

277 results. The neglect of logic in Cambridge is plainly absolute I will begin again, and will endeavor to write out some of the ideas with which I am supposed to be teaming on separate topics of vital importance. I feel I shall not do it we ll, because in spite of myself I shall betray my sentiments about such ideas; but being paid to do it, I will do it as well as I possibly can I wish I had to sing comic songs and dance, though I should do it badly The audience had better go home and say their prayers, I am thinking.108 In a draft of the first lect ure Peirce addressed his audi ence, comprised largely of Harvards lite youths living softly cultured lives and beseeched them to be guided by their instincts into almost every detail of life after the example of our humble cousins whom it pleases us to re fer to as the lower animals.109 Throughout this lecture he repeated the theme that instinct is infallible in practical matters but prone to failure and of little value in useless matters of theory and scientific discovery.110 At every turn, he expressed thinly masked contempt for matters of vital importance, i.e., the practical concerns of morality, religion, high and holy desire s, the greatest affairs of life, and matters which are, and out to be, sacred to us, includi ng earning comfortable incomes and obtaining worldly success, and reassured his hearers that on vitally important topics reasoning is out of place.111 At least once in these lectures Pe irce made reference to the medieval term logica utens .112 He explained elsewhere that logica utens is the set of opinions which you bring 108. Letter of Peirce to James, 12/26/1897, in Ralph Barton Perry, The Thought and Character of William James, 2 vols., (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1935), 2:419-20. 109. CP 1.649, 1.650. 110. CP 1.633, 1.634, 1.661. 111. CP 1.619, 1.620, 1.623, 1.633, 1.635, 1.642, 1.652 1.653. 112. Charles Sanders Peirce, Reasoning and the Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898 ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 109 (hereinafter cited as RLT ).

PAGE 287

278 to the study of logic,113 a common and general method for acquiring truth that is in our possession and operative in our daily decision making even when we are not aware of it. That is to say, logica utens is the instinctive logic-in-use [that] is more or less adequate to a very primitive and simple type of life, and hence for resolving the vitally important issues that everyone faces.114 Peirce illustrate d the operation of logica utens in the following passage. Perhaps it may sound like a contradiction to talk of instin ctive logic. It may possibly be thought that instinct is precisely that which is not logic or reason. But think of a man whos e business it is to lend out money. The accuracy of his cool reason is what he relies upon; and yet he is not guided by a theory of reasoning, but mu ch rather upon an intense love of money which stimulates his faculties of reasoning. That is what I call his logica utens. There are many fields in which few will maintain that any theoretical way of reaching conclusi ons can ever be so sure as the natural instinctive of an experien ced man. Yet let instinct tread beyond its proper borders but by ever so little, and it be comes the most helpless thing in the world, a veri table fish out of water.115 Logica utens is contrasted with logica docens or the legitimate doctrine that is to be learned by study, the discipline or scie nce of logic that can be developed and refined by erudition.116 The fourth opinion he ld by Peirce and noted by Ayim was one that views instinct and reason as complementary powers in the attainment of knowledge. In this view abduction, as the first step in the process of inquiry, is requisite to both induction and 113. CP 2.186. 114. Joseph Ransdell, Some Leading Ideas of Peirces Semiotic, see Arisbe website http://members.door.net.arisbe/menu/library/acoutcsp/ransdell/leading.htm (accessed August 2008). 115. Charles Peirce, MS L75:398-408 Version 1 Part 8, see http://members.door.net/arisbe/ menu/library/bycsp/175/ver1/175v1-10.htm (accessed August 2008). 116. Carolyn Eisele, ed., Historical Perspectives on Peirces Logic of Science 2 vols. (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985), 2:892; MS 692.

PAGE 288

279 deduction and necessary for any progress in science.117 It is Ayims position that not only did Peirce hold each of these four positions on abduction but that he held them contemporaneously and that they are in not, upon examination, mutually exclusive, rather that they each simply emphasize a different aspect of the analysis of reason and instinct.118 In any event, abduction is variously viewed by Peirce as bearing traits of both an instinct and a form of inference. To the extent that it is originative (CP 2.96), presumptive ( CP 2.776), irresistible ( CP 5.582) and experienced as an insight ( CP 5.181), a feeling (CP 7.218), a hope ( CP 7.219, 1.121), a surmise (CP 7.36) a guess ( CP 6.526), a conjecture ( CP 7.36), an attraction, an aversion, or an urge, abduction is clearly instinctual and psychological. On the othe r hand, to the degree that abduction is experimental (CP 5.581), deliberate ( CP 5.581), colligating (CP 5.581), voluntary, critical (CP 2.102), and controlled, it is inferen tial and, hence, normative. Peirce summarized his position by stating It must be remembered that abduction, although it is very little hampered by logical rules, nevertheless is logi cal inference, asserting its conclusion only problematicall y, it is true, but ne vertheless having a perfectly definite logical form.119 It is this very position that has drawn the ire of his critics. Harry Frankfurt spoke for many of them when he wrote: it is this very insistence by Peirce on the originative character of abduction, together with his claim th at abduction is indeed a form of logical inference, that presents th e first problem in the understanding of his doctrine [of abduction]. For Peir ce also holds the view that hypotheses are the result of insight, and there is a prima facie 117. CP 6.475. 118. Ayim, Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry, 18ff. 119. CP 5.188.

PAGE 289

280 contradiction between th is opinion and what he says about abduction We are, then, faced with the seeming paradox that Peirce holds both that hypotheses are the products of a wonderful imaginative faculty in man and that they are products of a cer tain sort of logical inference.120 For Frankfurt, abductions may be insights or inferences, but not both to the extent that inferences are conclusions drawn from pr emises based on prior experience and known facts, which are themselves conclusions. The late Arthur Burks also expressed dismay at the apparent contradiction in Peirces treatment of abduction as the logic of discovery. One might expect Peirces view to fl ow out of a confusion of logic and psychology, or out of a theory which held them to be inseparable. But he clearly separates logic from psychology: psychology, he frequently says, is a study of how we do think and is i rrelevant to logic, which is a study of how we ought to think. It is true that in his discussions of abduction Peirce often speaks of a mans insight into the laws of nature, his guessing instinct, his natural tend ency to guess right; all human knowledge, up to the highest flights of science, is but the development of our inborn animal instincts (2.75 4). Thus he says that abduction is really an appeal to instinct (1.630), and that the simpler hypothesis is the one that instinct sugg ests (6.416). Of course if these statements were taken literally, one could not speak meaningfully of the logic of abduction, for unless the process of abduction has a rati onale of some sort it cannot have a logic.121 Another of Peirces critics, K.T. Fann, agrees with Burks that the apparent contradiction is attributable to a transition in Peirces t hought on abduction from the view of it as an evidencing process to seeing it as a stage of scientific inquiry that produces hypotheses.122 This shift marked a movement from the syllogistic iteration of abduction that Peirce used to explain abduction in 1878. Peirces early work on abduction was rooted in his study of Aristo telian logic. Anderson traces the summation of Peirces 120. Harry G. Frankfurt, Peirces Notion of Abduction, The Journal of Philosophy 55 (July 1958): 593-4. 121. Arthur W. Burks, Peirces Theory of Abduction, Philosophy of Science 13 (Oct. 1946): 302. 122. Anderson, Creativity and the Philosophy of C.S. Peirce 19-20.

PAGE 290

281 syllogistic understand ing of abduction to a 1901 paper entitled The Logic of Drawing History from Ancient Documents.123 There Peirce argued for his translation of Aristotles apagogue as abduction. having remarked that induction, epagogue is the inference of a syllogism in Barbara or Celarent fr om its other two propositions as data, [Aristotle] would have asked himself whether the minor premiss of such a syllogism is not sometimes inferred from its other two propositions as data. Certainly, he would not be Aristotle, to have overlooked that question; and it would no sooner be as ked than he would perceive that such inferences are very common. A ccordingly, when he opens the next chapter [of Prior Analytics, II, 25] with the word apagogue a word evidently chosen to form a pendant to epogogue, we feel sure that this is what he is coming to.124 Andersons claim is that [Peirce] sees [apagogue] as the acceptance or creation of a minor premiss as a hypothetical soluti on to a syllogism whose major premiss is known and whose conclusion we find to be a fact.125 Because the minor premiss is not immediately known, Anderson says abductive arguments are merely possible, maybe probable, but can only be accepted provisionally. However, from his interpretation of Aristotle, Peirce arrived at an initial view of abduction whic h held it to be a type of reasoning whose form was that of obtaining a minor premiss from a major premiss and a conclusion.126 123. CP 7.164-231, 124. CP 7.249. 125. Douglas R. Anderson, The Evolution of Peirces Concept of Abduction, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (Spring 1986): 146. 126. Ibid., 147.

PAGE 291

282 In the final installment of the 1878 Popular Science series, Peirce had turned his attention to explaining the s ubtle differences that stand between induction and abduction as forms of synthetic inference.127 Induction is where we generalize fr om a number of cases of which something is true, and infer that the sa me thing is true of a whole class. Or, we find a certain thing to be true of a certain proportion of cases and infer that it is true of the same pr oportion of the whole class. Hypothesis [or Abduction] is where we find some very curious circumstance, which would be explained by the suppositi on that it was a case of a certain general rule, and thereupon adopt that supposition. Or, where we find that in certain respects two objects have a strong resemblance, and infer that they resemble one anothe r strongly in other respects.128 Peirce admitted that abduction is grounded in a common logical error: There is no greater nor more frequent mistake in practical logic than to suppose that things which resemble one another strongly in some respects are any the more likely for that to be alike in others.129 Therefore, he proposed a set of rules for this admittedly weak form of inference that would protect hon esty and guard against bias in scientific results, i.e., not block the road of inquiry.130 The application of these ru les would requir e that abductive inferences be replaced by stronger inductive arguments as inquiry progressed.131 In distinguishing induction from abdu ction Peirce noted the greatest difference as being that the former infers the existence of phenomena such as we have observed in cases which are similar, while hypothesis suppos es something of a different kind from what we have directly observed, and freque ntly something which it would be impossible 127. CP 2.619-644. 128. CP 2.624. 129. CP 2.634. 130. Ibid. 131. CP 2.642.

PAGE 292

283 for us to observe directly.132 Be that as it may, when we stretch an induction quite beyond the limits of our observation, the inference partakes of the nature of hypothesis.133 Thus Peirce was admitting that the real differences between induction and abduction are more a matter of degree than of kind, inasmuch as it would be absurd to say that we have no inductive warrant for a generalization extending a little bey ond the limits of experience, and there is no line to be drawn beyond wh ich we cannot push our inference; only that it becomes weaker the further it is pushed. Yet, if an induction be pushed very far, we cannot give it much credence unless we find that such an extension explains some fact which we can and do observe.134 Peirce goes on to note that distinction between induction and abduction is that it is associated with an important psychological or rather physiological di fference in the mode of apprehending facts.135 This becomes critical to whatever response that can be made to Stephens serious criticism of Peirces analogy of emotion to hypothesis that we made reference to in chapter three. That distinction was that Induction infers a rule. Now, a belief of a rule is a habit. That a habit is a rule active in us, is evident. That ever y belief is of the nature of a habit, in so far as it is of a general char acter, has been shown in the earlier papers of this series. Induction, therefore, is the logical formula which expresses the physiological process of formation of a habit. Hypothesis substitutes, for a complicated tangl e of predicates attached to one subject, a single conception. Now, there is a p eculiar sensation belonging to the act of th inking that each of thes e predicates inheres in the subject. In hypothetic inference th is complicated feeling so produced is replaced by a single feeling of greater intensity, that belonging to the act of thinking the hypothetic conclusion. Now, when our nervous system is excited in a complicated way, there being a relation between the elements of the excitation, th e result is a single harmonious disturbance which I call an emoti on. Thus the various sounds made by the instruments of an orchestra stri ke upon the ear, and the result is a 132. CP 2.640. 133. Ibid. 134. Ibid. 135. CP 2.643.

PAGE 293

284 peculiar musical emotion, quite distinct from the sounds themselves. The emotion is essentially the same th ing as an hypothetic inference, and every hypothetic inference involves th e formation of such an emotion. We may say, therefore, that hypothesis produces the sensuous element of thought, and induction the habitual element.136 We will again address the Stephens criticism in the final section of this chapter and speculate what kind of response Peirce might have made. Even though the form of abductiv e inference ranges outside the commonly accepted bounds of formal logic, it is by virtue of its loose resemblance to syllogism and its continuity with induction that Peirce was able to later argue that it is both an originative method and a logical form.137 It is, however, in a work simply entitled Guessing from 1907 that Peirce provided the clearest picture of his mature thinking on abduction and indicates his growi ng interest in the instinct. This essay was only partially included in the Collected Papers ,138 omitting a detailed and disturbing account of an instance of racial profiling Peirce used to illustrate how he had once used abductive reasoning to recover a stolen gold watch by guessing the identity of a colored waiter he suspected. The complete essay appear ed in Harvards literary quarterly, The Hound & Horn, in 1929.139 In it he claimed that even t hough abduction operates as surmise, conjecture, or guess: We may be aided by previous knowle dge in forming our hypotheses. In that case they will not be pure guesses but will be compounds of deductions from general rules we already know, applied to the facts under observation, for one ingredient and pure guess for the other ingredient.140 136. Ibid. 137. Anderson, The Evolution of Peirces Concept of Abduction, 146. 138. CP 7.36-48. 139. Charles S. Peirce, Guessing, The Hound & Horn 2 (Spring 1929): 267-282. 140. Ibid., 268.

PAGE 294

285 He went on to explain how such compounds might be formed. suppose the surprising facts whic h puzzle us are th e actions of a certain man on a certain occasion; and our conjecture relates to the state of belief that caused such conduct. If we have no previous knowledge of the man, any one state of belief that would account for his conduct might be as good a guess as any other; but if we know that he is particularly inclined, or particularly disinclined, to extravagant beliefs or any other special kind of belief, we still have to guess; only we shall select our guess from a small number of possible hypotheses.141 He then tied the whole business of guessing to Darwinian evolution. In the evolution of science, guessing pl ays the same part that variations in reproduction take in the evolutio n of biological forms, according to the Darwinian theory. For just as, ac cording to that theory, the whole tremendous gulf, or ocean rather, between the moner and the man has been spanned by a succession of infin itesimal fortuitous variations at birth, so the whole noble or ganism of science has been built up out of propositions which were or iginally simple guesses.142 It is here that Peirce presen ts his strongest argument for a bduction, namely, that for any given phenomenon under investigation there might be trillions and trillions of hypotheses that could account for it. Notwithst anding the fact that in the mind of the investigator this phenomenon might be a special determination by a million other phenomena, each of which might, in turn, be shown to be determined by each of the others, by the laws of probability it would be nearly impossi ble for any mind to correctly guess the cause of any phenomenon. The chronicles of science are, however, filled with one account after another of an i nvestigator beating these odds. There are, indeed, puzzles, and one mi ght well say mysteries, connected with the mental operation of guessing There can, I think, be no reasonable doubt that mans mind having been developed under the influence of the laws of nature, for that reason naturally thinks 141. Ibid. 142. Ibid.

PAGE 295

286 somewhat after natures pattern. This vague explanation is but a surmise; but there is no room to believe that it was merely by luck that Galileo and the other masters of science reach ed the true theories after so few wrong guesses as they did. This power of divining the truths of physics for such it is, although it is somewhat imperfect is certainly an aid to the instinct for obtaining food, an in stinct whose wonders throughout the animal kingdom are exceeded only by that of producing and rearing offspring.143 Yet it is just this kind of incredible luck th at Rorty credits to Galileo in having hit upon a vocabulary that enabled him to frame his hypot heses and achieve scientific success. Galileos terminology was the only secret he had he didnt pick that terminology because it was clear or n atural, or simple, or in line with the categories of pure unders tanding. He just lucked out.144 Whether it is, as Rorty suggests, a matter of finding the right jargon with which to frame ones hypotheses and pose the right questi ons or a capacity fo r guessing the hypotheses that turn out to be the truest representa tion of nature which accounts for scientific breakthroughs, the odds of doing either are, as Peirce indicated, astronomical. William Davis uses a familiar puzzle to illustrate just how long the odds would be. To find the correct answer to the next le tters in an infinite sequence beginning OTTFF one would have to pick the ordering princi ple out of literally an infinite number of possibilities. For example, here is one wrong solution to the problem: O is the fifteenth letter in the alphabet; T is the twentieth; F is the sixth. Perhaps the series is constructed by dropping back one letter, and the next group is NSSEE, and so on indefinitely, going back to Z after A. This certainly brings a unity to the problem and is a possible solution. But perhaps the rule is mo re complex. Here is another wrong solution: Perhaps these letters are the initial letters to the first words in the first book in the upper, right-ha nd corner of the bookcase in my 143. Ibid., 269. 144. Richard Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), 193.

PAGE 296

287 study, and the next letters are the ini tial letters to th e succeeding words in that book, and so on through that book and all the other books in the bookcase, and then repeat the se ries There is no end to wrong theories, and to wrong ways to impose a unity on the series.145 Davis contention is that to ar rive at the correct answer, i.e., the solution that the puzzles inventor had in mind, would, because of the pu zzles vagueness, literally take a stroke of luck. Even the series OTTFF repeated infi nitely would meet the condition of a possible solution and would be, undoubtedly, offered by a computer that was programmed to run through all possibilities. Accord ing to Peirces theory ther e is not only an appropriate answer to the puzzle that a bduction suggests to the mind of the investigator, there is a sense of knowing that it is the right answer that is instinctive. The only way to express Peirces theo ry is to say that the person who solves the problem has enough insight into human psychology to know or to sense or feel that the correct answer is the kind of answer that makes the puzzle significantly inte resting to other people. The subconscious hones in [sic] on interesting solutions, and ignores the vast quantity of possible and ad hoc solutions. How a machine could answer this puzzle other than by going blindly through every conceivable possibility and whethe r it could do it even this way in anything less than a short eterni ty, I do not know. And how it could recognize the significant answer when it found it, is the second problem.146 Such is the reason why Peirce did not believe that machines could be made to reason in any but the most superficial sense of the word.147 True reason involves more than endless deductions upon infinite hypothese s; it employs insight, an ins tinct or sense of knowing what is significant to other minds and, as we will see in the final ch apter, such a capacity 145. Davis, Peirces Epistemology 117-8. 146. Ibid., 118. 147. CP 2.59.

PAGE 297

288 han, requires the notion that minds share a common nature, that th e content of other minds are accessible to us. Peirce credited the human instinct for correct gue ssing to a natural adaptation. Survival of the species is due in large measure to its having acquired certain instincts or natural beliefs that relate in part to forces, in part to the action of minds.148 Science itself is nothing but a development of our natural instincts.149 In fact, the two great branches of human science, physics and psychi cs, are but developments of that guessinginstinct under the corr ective action of induction.150 As we have noted, Peirce employed a term he credited to Galil eo for the rational instinct of understanding nature and correctly guessing the laws that govern it il lume naturale and likened its operation to the instincts of lower animals. Il lume naturale as an instinctive capacity works not only to help us identify the set of best hypotheses fr om the trillions of possible solutions but by revealing the right hypothesis as the simplest from the standpoi nt of nature rather t la Ockham, logic That truly inspired prophet [Galileo] had said that, of two hypotheses, the simpler is to be preferred; but I was formerly one of those who, in our dull self-conceit fancying ourselves more sly than he, twisted the maxim to mean the logically simpler, the one that adds the least to what has been observed It was not unt il long experience forced me to realize that subsequent discoveries were every time showing I had been wrong, while those who understood the maxim as Galileo had done, early unlocked the secret, that the sc ales fell from my eyes and my mind awoke to the broad and flaming daylight that it is the simpler Hypothesis in the sense of the more facile and naturale, the one that instinct suggests, that must be preferred.151 148. CP 5.603. 149. CP 6.604. 150. CP 6.531. 151. CP 6.477.

PAGE 298

289 Such a caveat, it might be argued, by bifu rcating logical and natural simplicity makes identification of the best hypothesis, i.e., the naturally simpler, largely a matter of question begging. That hypothesis will always be the one that in stinct, not logic, suggested. But the instinct we are talking about is the logic of abduction or it is merely a hunch or pure guess. As if anticipating this cr iticism, Peirce provided his response in the closing paragraphs of the Guessing essay. It is not without real significance that Peirce c oncluded Guessing by recounting the series of experiments on perception that he and Jastrow had conducted at the Johns Hopkins University, experiments that demonstrated a discrimination below the surface of consciousness, and not recogn ized as a real judgment 152 The success of abduction is a chapter of the art of inquiry, according to Peirce, a mystery grounded in two leading principles. I infer in the first place, he said, that man di vines something of the secret principles of the universe because hi s mind has developed as a part of the universe and under the influence of these same secret principles; and secondly, that we often derive from observation strong intimations of truth, without being able to specify what were the circumstances we had observed which conveyed those intimations.153 In the end, our faculty of guessing corresponds to a bi rds musical and aeronautic powers; that is, it is to us, as those are to them, the loftiest of our merely instinctive powers.154 Taking this statement at face value it is nothing short of astonishing to consider that in 152. Peirce, Guessing, 280. 153. Ibid., 281-2. 154. Ibid., 282.

PAGE 299

290 1903 Peirce had written If you carefully cons ider the question of pragmatism you will see that it is nothing else than th e question of the logic of abduction.155 D. Reason, Emotion and Sentiment In chapter three we presented Lynn St ephens criticism of th e analogy that Peirce drew between emotion and hypothesis. We will now address it in more detail and conclude with an examination of the normativ e aspect of emotion. This latter study will take us to Peirces understandi ng of community, the subject of the final chapter. In this section we return to the se miotic aspect of emotion. Stephens problem with Peirce centers on Peirces alleged cognitivist treatment of emotion which should demonstrate how emoti on is reducible to cognition. Peirces attempt to draw a strong analogy between the operations of emotion and hypothesis fails, by Stephens estimation, to indicate that su ch a reduction is possible on Peirces own terms in the essay Some Consequences of Four Incapacities from the 1868 Cognition Series ( CP 5.264-317). Peirces position, as we have seen, was that every mental operation consists in a succession of thought which proceeds according to and is explainable by reference to the rules of valid inference.156 The emotions as mental processes, hence, should be reducible to cognition. Peirce pointed to the evidence. Now every emotion has a subject. If a man is angry, he is saying to himself that this or that is vile a nd outrageous. If he is in joy, he is 155. CP 5.196, 156. G. Lynn Stephens, Cognition and Emotion in Peirces Theory of Mental Activity, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 17 (Spring 1981): 134.

PAGE 300

291 saying this is delicious. If he is wondering, he is saying, this is strange. In short, whenever a man feels, he is thinking of something .157 He then claimed that there is a similarity between the mental processes involved in emotion and those found in hypothesis or abductive reasoning158 that consists of the explanatory nature of emotion in which an emotion substitutes a simple predicate for a complicated set of sensations, i.e., for a highly complex predicate. He concluded by saying, if we consider that a very complex predicate dema nds explanation by means of an hypothesis, that that hypothesis must be a simpler predicate substituted for that complex one; and that when we have an emotion, an hypothesis, strictly speaking, is hardly possible the analogy of the parts played by emotion and hypothesis is very striking.159 As Peirce later noted, hypothesis substitutes, for a complicated tangle of predicates attached to one subject, a single conception,160 thus arguing that there is a very strong similarity in these mental opera tions. Stephens wonders just how far Peirce wished to take this analogy a nd says that from the text, it is hard to tell whether he intended it as merely an analogy or was sugge sting that emotion is a kind of abduction. He goes on to conclude that the balance of Pe irces remarks in this essay make it clear that he did not regard emotions as a type of hypothesis. There is, it is true, said Peirce, this difference between an emotion and an intellectual hypothesis. We have reason to say in the case of the latter, that to whatever the simple hypothetic predicate can be app lied, of that the complex predicate is true; whereas, in the case of an emotion this is a proposition for which 157. CP 5.292. 158. Ibid. 159. CP 5.292. 160. CP 2.643

PAGE 301

292 no reason can be given, but which is determined merely by our emotional constitution.161 In the case of hypothesis we have an argument form which proceeds upon the assumption that a character which is known necessarily to involve a certain number of others, may be probably predicated of any object which has all the characters which this character is known to involve. Just as induction may be regarded as the inference of the major premiss of a syllogism so hypothesis may be regarded as the inference of the minor premiss, from the other two propositions.162 Stephens explains that hypot hetical reasoning commences When we observe that some object or state of affairs, S, exhibits a puzzling complex of properties, CP. Ca sting about for an explanation it occurs to us that if S were M, where M denotes a predicate simpler than CP, it would not be puzzling that S should be CP. We therefore advance the hypothesis that S is M.163 Peirce formally stated the rule of inference in CP 5.276 and ten years later in CP 2.623 as: Whatever is M is CP S is M S is CP Stephens reminds us that the argument depi cts the logical form but not the temporal succession of the thoughts represented. The conclu sion S is CP is actually what occurs first, though it appears last as the thing to be explaine d by the hypothesis. The (unknown) hypothesis is the minor premise but occurs last in the sequence as the thing to be shown. The major premiss is only known to us empirically from prior cognitions and, says Stephens, may not occur explicitly in our thinking, but must occur implicitly.164 161. CP 5.292. 162. CP 5.276. 163. Stephens, Cognition and Emotion in Peirces Theory of Mental Activity, 136. 164. Ibid., 137.

PAGE 302

293 Peirce claimed that in the case of emotion no reason can be given for holding that to whatever the hypothetic predicate can be applied, of that the complex predicate is true.165 Stephens illustrates the point. My anger, i.e., my thought that some thing is vile, arises on the occasion of my thinking that something is CP But, I have no reason to believe that there is any connection, empirical or conceptual, between being vile and being CP. Hence, the fact that S is vile isnt a hypothesis and the transition from thinking that S is CP and that S is vile isnt a hypothetical argument.166 Emotion, according to the ite ration of 1868, follows more closely along the lines of sensation than hypothesis. The general principle that everything to which such and such sensation belongs, has such and such a complicated series of predicates, is not one determined by reason (as we have see n, but is of an arbitrary nature. Hence, the class of hypothetic infe rences which the arising of a sensation resembles, is that of reasoning from definition to definitum, in which the major premise is of an arbi trary nature. Only in this mode of reasoning, this premiss is determined by the conventions of language, and expresses the occasion upon which a word is to be used; and in the formation of sensation, it is formed by the constitution of our nature, and expresses the occasions upon which sensation, or a natural mental sign, arises.167 The appeal to the constitution of our nature as whatever cause there is for the transition from the thought that S is CP to the emotion the notion that S is v ile, to use his example is, for Stephens, an assertion that refutes Peirces own theory of cognition. That which distinguishes both sensat ions proper and emotions from the feeling of a thought, is th at in the case of the tw o former the material quality is made prominent, because the thought has no relation of reason to the thoughts which determine it By there being no relation of reason I mean that there is nothing in the content of the thought which 165. CP 5.292. 166. Stephens, Cognition and Emotion in Peirces Theory of Mental Activity, 137. 167. CP 5.291.

PAGE 303

294 explains why it should arise only on occasion of these determining thoughts.168 The material quality is a re ference to the mere feeling of the emotion or Sensation,169 i.e., an incomplex thought.170 Cognition is, however, depe ndent upon the relations of reason. Cognition is a sequence of thoughts in which the propositions expressed by the successive thoughts are related by the rules of va lid inference. Peirce denies that any such relations hold between emotions an d the thoughts which precede them.171 In so doing, Peirce has refuted his own cognitivist project. Peirces response to Stephens w ould, I believe, follow a path converging from other things he had to say regarding the na ture and function of emotion elsewhere in Some Consequences of Four Incapac ities, and ten years later in the Illustrations of the Logic of Science series for Popular Science Monthly First, he might remind the reader that we have seen that every sort of modification of consciousness Attention, Sensation and Understanding is an inference.172 That would also include emotion, instinct and perception, which like sensation and attention, ar e semiotic, i.e., logical, processes. Michael Hoffman acknowledges the central feature of Peirces epistemology is that all cognition from perception to logical and mathematical reasoning is mediated by signs or elements of generality.173 We noted in the previous chapter, 168. CP 5.294. 169. CP 5.293. 170. CP 5.294. 171. Stephens, Cognition and Emotion in Peirces Theory of Mental Activity, 138-9. 172. CP 5.298. 173. Michael Hoffmann, Is There a Logic of Abduction? Institute fr Didaktik der Mathematik, see http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/idm/personen/mhoffman/papers/abduction-logic.html (accessed August 2008).

PAGE 304

295 tion. that for Peirce there is clear ly evidence of generality in perception and, as it turns out, there is even evidence of it in sensa I am not quite prepared to say what pr ecisely is in my consciousness; but of this I am sure, that every memory of a sensation is more or less vague, that is, general. Every memory Why, the sensation itself, when present for a few moments, is so 174 To the extent that something is general, it is predicable. Thus there is no mental activity which is not, in some manne r of speaking, reasonable. Secondly, the conclusion in CP 5.292 that in the case of an emotion this is a proposition for which no reason can be given, but which is determined merely by our emotional constitution, should be interpreted in light of what follows in the next paragraph, a passage we examined in chapter three, where in distinguishing sensation and emotion, Peirce wrote: An emotion comes much later in the development of thought [than a sensation] I mean, further from the beginning of the cognition of its object and the thoughts which determine it already have motions corresponding to them in the brain or the chief ganglion; consequently, it produces large movements in the body, and independently of its representative value, strongly affects the current of thought .175 And a few paragraphs la ter he declared that: Everything in which we take the leas t interest creates in us its own peculiar emotion, however slight this might be. This emotion is a sign and a predicate of the thing.176 It is clear that even in 1 868 Peirce was moving toward an understanding of emotion as part of the reasonable seque nce of thought, determined, in part, by the thoughts which precede it, as a sign to its objec t. As we will reiterate in th e next section, emotions as 174. CP 7.407. 175. CP 5.293. 176. CP 5.308.

PAGE 305

296 signs have interpretants and ar e interpretants to other signs. The important thing to bear in mind is that, as Short notes, the concept of the interpretant is broader than that of consciousness, and applies to many kinds of re sponses to stimuli in the animal and even in the vegetable world that certai nly do not involve consciousness.177 As interpretants, our emotions do participate in the rationa l process of thought, or semiosis, without necessarily being cognized as such. In a long section in CP 5.294, Peirce addressed the differences between sensations and emotions, on the one hand, and the feeling of a thought, on the other hand. What distinguishes sensations and emotions from thoughts is not the structure of the mental processes but the relative prominence of the material quality of the mental action.178 We might say that the physiological manifestation associated with the feeling of sensation and emotion eclipses the more subtle feeling of thought. In chapter three we observed that one of the difficulties with the theory of 1868 is that it does not provide a means of differentiating sensation from emotion, one of th e serious problems with James theory of emotion. It says nothing about emotional aff ect which, as Savan understood it, has to do with variations in the intensity of arousa l and agitation and its manifestations in involuntary physiological change as well as larger movements of approach and withdrawal, the impulse to fight or flight.179 177. Thomas L. Short, David Savans Peirce Studies, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (Spring 1986): 115. 178. C.F. Delaney, Peirce s Account of Mental Activity, Synthese 41 (1979): 34. 179. David Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, in Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch and Charles S. Hardwick (Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1981), 326.

PAGE 306

297 What does it mean to be an emotional person as well as a rational being? The answer Peirce gave is to be found in the 1877-8 papers of the Popular Science Monthly series. There, in the essay entitled Deducti on, Induction Hypothesis, Peirce stated: Now, when our nervous system is excited in a complicated way, there being a relation between the elements of the excitation, the result is a single disturbance which I call an emotion. Thus, the various sounds made by the various instruments of an orchestra strike upon the ear, and the result is a peculiar musical emo tion, quite distinct from the sounds themselves. This emotion is essentially the same thing as a hypothetic inference, and every hypothetic infere nce involves the formation of such an emotion. We may say, therefor e, that hypothesis produces the sensuous element of thought, and induction the habitual element.180 It is clear from this passage that Peirce believ ed emotion not only to be a simple predicate substituting for a complex predicate, but a hypot hetical inference rela ted to the preceding thoughts, aiding in the explanati on and justification of the actions that follow. Thus, in answer to Stephens, we might argue that Pe irce did, indeed, clearly indicate how emotion is reducible to reason. Peirces view of emotions was th at they are not valueneutral, as Savan has indicated.181 Emotions are evaluated, in a broad sense, as being good or bad. Joy, hope and love are deemed to be good, perhaps simply because they accompany sensations of pleasure or perhaps because they are regarded by others as honor able or desirable. Sorrow, fear, and shame are bad, again, possibly because they occur on occasions of experienced pain or discomfort, or for the reason that they are not valued by others. Emotions are also judged to be appropriate or inappropria te, justified or unjustified. Sometimes anger is called for and not to be angry is a weakness, but other times anger is 180. CP 2.643. 181. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 328.

PAGE 307

298 a mistake; and so on for sadness, joy, and the rest.182 Weve seen how Peirce viewed the teleological growth of inquiry, ideas, habits, feelings, the notion of self, literally every mode of a sign, and, in chapter th ree, how this aspect of signs is recognized in and by the final interpretant. Savan reminds us that It is [Peirces] recognition of the importance of critical standards for moral action and for logical argumentation that leads him to call the final interpretant, alternatively, the normal interpretant.183 In the case of emotion it has, predictably, three aspects. It is considered first, as in its elf a norm for a sign. Second, it is in a dyadic relation to the sign it interprets. And third, it is in a triadic relation of assurance to its object through the sign th at it interprets.184 Peirce introduced his theory of logical sentiments in the 1878 Illustrations of the Logic of Science series. There he made it clear that th ey were associated with the business of fixing belief, specifically with the rational method of science. It may seem strange that I should put forward three sentiments as indispensable requirements of logic. Yet when we consider that logic depends on a mere struggle to escape doubt, which, as it terminates in action, must begin in emotion, and that furthermore, the only cause of our planting ourselves on reason is that other methods of escaping doubt fail on account of the social impulse, why should we wonder to find social sentiment presupposed in reasoning?185 Savan suggests that Peirce had intentionally associated each of the methods of fixing belief that he treated in the first essay of this series with one of th e three relations derived via hypostatic abstraction from the categories. In The Fixation of Belief, Peir ce discussed two other methods of dealing with doubt, a method of Firstn ess that he called the ap priori 182. Short, David Savans Peirce Studies, 119-20. 183. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 329. 184. Ibid. 185. CP 2.655.

PAGE 308

299 method, and a method of Secondness, divided into the two forms of tenacity and authority. The three l ogical sentiments are basic to the method of Thirdness, the rational method of science. The first method is closely linked with in stinctive emotions the second method is associated with the emotions regulated by the church and the state. The [three] logical sentiments are f undamental to the all inclusive community of those whose actions and emotions are controlled through constantly renewed, rational criticism.186 This, according to Savan, gives rise to Peirce s three-fold classification of emotions. The first category of emotions is comp rised of the natural emotions, those that are innate, instinctive in the narrowest sense, and have to do with breeding and feeding.187 These include natural fears, rages, revulsions, joy in warm bodily contact, and grief over loss and are observable in huma n infants and other animals.188 Instinctive emotions find their objects of expression w ithout a learning process. Savan raises the question of what the final aim of natural emotions might consist in. What is their ultimate interpretant, considered in itself, as a monad? What is the bad condition that anger, fear, and revulsion tend to remove? What is the good state that gives rise to joy? It is not enough answer that frustration is the unlearned stimulus for anger, and that warm body contact is the unlearned stimulus fo r joy. We are asking about the final interpretant, the end toward wh ich the dynamic interpretants tend.189 Peirce did not reduce the ultimate aim simply to the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. He said that we have an instin ctive dislike of an undecided state of mind, exaggerated into a vague dread of doubt.190 Admittedly, it might be argued that this is nothing more than the motivation of pain avoi dance to the extent that Peirce associated doubt with a feeling of irritation ( CP 5.373), struggle ( CP 5.374), and uneasiness (CP 186. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 329. 187. CP 1.118. 188. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 330. 189. Ibid., 330. 190. CP 5.377.

PAGE 309

300 5.510). The complement to this unpleasan t feeling is not so much pleasure per se but an absence of irritation, a homeostatic sense of rest, equilibrium and peace of mind which doubt disrupts. However, Peirce do es speak of this state as one that is naturally happy and self-satisfied.191 This is a state to which one, distur bed by doubt, seeks to return. Pleasure is not, in the final analysis, the object that is pursued by the natural emotions, but the thing that is associated with joy, i.e., the full stomach and the warmth that the infant receives in bodily contact with its mother. In the end, the natural emotion identifies its object through the quality of the emotion expe rienced. The sign that is interpreted by its final interpretant as identif ying its objects primarily thr ough the quality of the sign was called by Peirce a rhematic sign.192 Besides natural emo tions there is a second category of emotions which are acquired through experience and moral traini ng. To illustrate the difference between natural and moral emotions, Savan asks us to compare the following pairs: anger and indignation, annoyance and resentment, affecti on and benevolence, disgust and contempt, fear and guilt, joy and pride. In each of these pairs the second member includes a moral norm. I may be angry at my car for breaking down on an important trip, but I can be indignant only with someone I can blame say, the garage mechanic. I may be annoyed at trivia but I cannot resent them unless I think I have a right to be free of interruption. I ma y be disgusted by a foul meal but I reserve my contempt for the cook. Th e norm is moral. When a sign is referred to its moral final interpretant, Peirce called it practical, leaning on Kants use of that term.193 191. CP 5.366. 192. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 330. See SS, 33-4 where Peir ce writes: In regard to its relation to its signified interpretant, a si gn is either a Rheme, a Dicent, or an Argument. This corresponds to the old division Term, Proposition, & Argu ment, modified so as to be applicable to signs generally A Rheme is any sign that is not true or false. See also CP 2.250, where he adds: Any Rheme, perhaps, will afford some information; but it is not interpreted as doing so. 193. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 331.

PAGE 310

301 ity, Savan rightly points out that moral emotions, being lear ned in specific social and historical contexts, can neve r be universal and necessary. External social authorities, perhaps religious or political, differ accordi ng to place and time, and exert various kinds of emotional influence on the authority of an individuals conscience. There are folkways of right emotion as well as of right conduct.194 For this reason the final intrepretant of a mora l emotion is a dicent or dicisign, an indexical representation of its object. A Dicisign must profess to refer or re late to something as having a real being independently of the representa tion of it as such Or we may say that a Dicisign is a sign which is understood to represent its object in respect to actual existence.195 Indignation, resentment, benevolence, contempt and guilt can only be represented in relation to an actual othe r by whom or by which one can be truly affected.196 In other words, it is unlike a natural emotion which is represented simply by the quality of feeling as simply anger, annoyance or fear. Finally, there are the sentiments. S entiments are enduring and ordered systems of emotions, attached either to a person, an institution, or, in Pe irces case, a method.197 By way of example, Savan points out that one who loves will experience a full complement of emotions that include, but are not lim ited to, anger, joy, jealousy, sorrow, euphoria, embarrassment, disappointment, and conten tment. The three logical sentiments198 provide another example. These sentiments are (1) an interest in an indefinite commun 194. Ibid. 195. EP 2:275, 292. 196. Ibid. 197. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 331. 198. CP 2.655.

PAGE 311

302 he (2) recognition of the possibility of this interest being made supreme, and (3) hope in t unlimited continuance of intellectual activity and are indispensable requirements of logic.199 To be logical, men must not be selfish,200 and these sentiments are premised upon the possibility of the very kind of self-sacrifice and sympathy with the thoughts of others that Peirce deemed essential to scie ntific progress. So th e social principle is rooted intrinsically in logic.201 He likened the logical sentim ents to those of which Paul of Tarsus wrote in the Christian Bible, the famous trio of Charity, Faith, and Hope, which are the finest and gr eatest of spiritual gifts.202 Savan paraphrased the relationship of the logical sentiments to the business of scientific inquiry as follows: It is a matter of faith or trust that there is a real world which is independent of what any man or group of men may think it to be. It is a matter of hope that this independent real ity can be known eventually through the long painstak ing process of formulating, clarifying, and sifting our theoretical beliefs abou t it. Beyond the two sentiments of faith and hope, the scien tist must be moved by the love of truth, that is to say, by a willing sacrifice of persona l short-term achievement for the long-run approximation to an ideally ultimate and stable truth, agreed upon by the scientif ic community.203 We will take a closer look at Peirces notion of the sentiment of selfless love or agape in the next chapter. Just as Peirce spoke of methods for fixing belief, we have in the logical sentiments, according to Savan, a means for fixing emotion.204 The aim of these sentiments is true stability in our beliefs and in our daily lives. Indeed, they convert the 199. Ibid. 200. CP 2.654. 201. CP 5.354; cf. 2.654f. 202. Ibid. 203. David Savan, The Unity of Peirces Thought, in Pragmatism and Purpose, eds. L.W. Sumner, John G. Slater, and Fred Wilson, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981) (emphasis mine). 204. Savan, Peirces Semiotic Theory of Emotion, 331.

PAGE 312

303 goal of stability into a norm for crit icizing, rationalizing, and controlling our emotions.205 That stability, Savan suggests, is th e final interpretant of the logical sentiments, the secure peace of a c ontingent, finite, and mortal person.206 The vicissitudes of life promise de spair and unrest. The doctrine of chances guarantees ruination. If [the gambler] plays long enough he will be sure to have such a run against him that as to exhaust his enti re fortune. The same thing is true of an insurance company. Let the di rectors take utmost pains to be independent of great conflagrations and pestilences, their actuaries can tell them that, according to the doctr ine of chances, the time will come, at last, when their loss es will bring them to a stop. They may tide over such a crisis by extraordinary means, but then they will start again in a weakened state, and the same th ing will happen again all the sooner.207 Whatever can happen, will happen in the long run. It is, as we will examine more closely in the final chapter, our identification with an indefinite community of investigators and the hope that that this community, bound together by the altruistic logical sentiments, will endure long enough to profit from the bus iness of drawing inferences from probabilities.208 All human affairs rest upon probabili ties, and the same thing is true everywhere. If man were immortal he could be perfectly sure of seeing the day when everything in which he had trusted should betray his trust, and, in short, of coming eventually to hopeless misery. He would break down, at last, as every great fortune, as every dynasty, as every civilization does. In place of this we have death. But what, without death, would happen to every man, with death must happen to some man. At the same time, death makes the number of our risks, of our inferences, fin ite, and so makes their mean result 205. Ibid. 206. Ibid., 332. 207. CP 2.653. 208. Christopher Hookway, Sentiment and Self-Control, in The Rule of Reason: The Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce, eds. Jacqueline Brunning and Paul Forster (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 211.

PAGE 313

304 uncertain. The very idea of probab ility and of reasoning rests on the assumption that this number is indefin itely great. We are thus landed in the same difficulty as before, and I can see but one solution of it. It seems to me that we are driven to th is, that logicality inexorably requires that our interests shall not be limited. They must not stop at our own fate, but must embrace the whole community.209 Elsewhere, sentiment is identified with instinct210 and is linked to the doctrine Peirce termed sentimentalism or conservatism which stresses that great respect should be paid to the natural j udgments of the sensible heart.211 Peirce believed reason to be essentially egotistical,212 appealing to sentiment in the last resort.213 It is instinctive or sentimental induction that summarizes the collective experience of the human race.214 That it is abstractly and absolutely infallib le we do not pretend, Peirce conceded, but that it is practically infallible for the indivi dual in that he ought to obey it and not his individual reason, that we do maintain.215 In the next chapter we will explore several themes stemming from this c oncurrence of sentiment and th e whole experience of the unlimited community. 209. CP 2.653-4. 210. CP 1.637. 211. CP 6.292. 212. CP 1.631. 213. CP 1.632. 214. CP 1.633. 215. Ibid.

PAGE 314

305 Chapter Seven Community: The Social Instinct No general description of the mode of knowledge can be just which leaves out account of the social aspect of knowledge. This is its very essence. What a thing society is! -Peirce, MS A. Inquiry and Community: Th e Social Theory of Logic In this chapter we will examine th e fundamental status of the general notion of community in Peirces work. This will entail a look at how Peirce understood the nature of community, his view of the individual human as a community of cells and his understanding of society as a greater person. From there we will study his idea of the community of inquirers, the ideal commun ity without definite limits, through which reality is defined and truth is pursued. Th is will necessitate some understanding of his doctrine of agapism, the antithesis of the ar rogant individualism, errant subjectivism and greed that he viewed as the fruits of the vulgar nominalism permeating nineteenth century American culture. It will also require some understanding of the role of community in what Helmut Pape has called the normativity of assertion.1 The juxtaposition of logic and community is a relatively unexplored ar ea of Peirces thought, as James Hoopes observes. Those intellectual historians su ch as Murray Murphey and Bruce Kuklick who Epigraph. C.S. Peirce MS 1573:273, n.d.; see http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/rsources/ quotes/quotes.htm l (accessed September 2008). 1. Helmut Pape, Pragmatism and the Normativity of Assertion, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 38 (Fall 2002): 521-542.

PAGE 315

306 have paid the most attention to Peirces act ual writings rather than merely the social circumstances of his life have recognized the centrality of logic to his thought but have not related it to his emphasis on community.2 This unfortunate fact is, I believe, one reason that Peirces work has not been as valued as it might ot herwise have been. Peirce held that the attainment of knowledge is, as John E. Smith put it, an organic process that is dialectic al in the sense that it involves a gradual criticism of what is merely private or subjective, and the preservation of the objective and universal.3 In 1868 Peirces claim was that th e act of thinking is a dialogue that originates between different phases of the ego.4 Forty years later he reiterated that All thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one inst ant appeals to your deeper self for his assent. Consequently, all thinking is conducted in signs.5 From his belief that all thought is in signs, and its corollary that all thinking is dialogic in nature, followed what Peirce called his social theory of logic. In time, says Fisch, it led him to return to the etymological meaning of the adjective scienti fic ; that is, knowledgemaking, or conducive to knowledge [and] to abandon the notion of science as a body of organized knowledge, once-and-for-all and infallibly concluded, and to adopt instead the notion that science is what scientists do the way of life of the scientific community.6 This view of science turned on two assumptions. First, science can only succeed to the extent its practitioners are governed by habits of self-effacement and humility. 2. James Hoopes, Community Denied (Ithaca, New York: Cornell Un iversity Press, 1998), 32. 3. John E. Smith, Community and Reality, in Richard J. Bernstein, ed., Perspectives on Peirce (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), 109. 4. CP 4.6, Cf. 5.506, 5.497n1, 5.481. 5. CP 6.338. 6. Max H. Fisch, Just How General Is Peirces General Theory of Signs? in Peirce, Semiotic and Pragmatism : Essays by Max H. Fisch, eds. Kenneth Laine Ketner an d Christian J. W. Kloesel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 358.

PAGE 316

307 Peirce variously defended the following values as necessary preconditi ons of inquiry: the passion and joy of learning, fair-mindedness a nd impartiality, devotion, honesty, probity, industry, and cognitive flexibility.7 These attitudes can only be cultivated within the scientific community and are embodied in the logical sentim ents, consisting of, as we have seen, interest in an indefinite community, recognition of the possibility of this interest being made supreme, and hope in the unlimited continuance of intellectual activity.8 B. The Nature of Community In chapter four we examined Peirces negative view of the self and observed that Peirce viewed the individual as the source of ignorance and error, that human beings were, to Peirces mind, mere cells on the social organism.9 In the Lowell Lectures of 1866 he stated his belief that the individual human being, like any singular term, is in actuality a composite. Do you say Daniel Webster is an individual? He is so in common parlance, but in logical strictness he is not. We think of certain images in our memory a platform and a noble form uttering convincing and patriotic words a statue-certain printed matter and we say that which that speaker and the man whom that statue was taken for and the writer of this speech that which these are in common is Daniel Webster. Thus, even the proper name of a man is a general term or the name of a class, for it names a class of sensatio ns and thoughts. The true individual term [,] the absolutely singular this and that cannot be reached. Whatever has comprehension must be general.10 7. Ilona Kemp-Pritchard, Peirce on Logi cal Hope and Philosophical Sentiment, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (September 1981): 82. See, e.g., CP 1.43, 1.49, 1.127, 1.236, 1.576, 2.82, 6.3. 8. CP 2.655. 9. CP 1.673. 10. W 1:461.

PAGE 317

308 Further reflection, however, indicates that Peir ce did not so much intend to denigrate the individual as he sought to establish the community as an empirically grounded, metaphysical entity through which the self as actualized reality is understood and knowledge is obtained. His understanding of the communal nature of all life bears some similarity to the basic tenets of twentieth century soci obiologists and communitarians. Like a sociobiologist, Peirce had an expressed intere st in the complex social structures and behaviors of various species. Like any communitarian, Peirce held that society has some of the same reality as does the individual.11 However, as we have noted above, Peirces interest in the ph enomenon of community went much deeper, down to the cellular level. His clai m that, consciousness is a sort of public spirit among the nervecells,12 provided a protoplasmic metaphor fo r his understanding of human community. As he remarked on another occasion, by us, we mean our neighbors, all that are embraced in the community, or society, very indefinite to our apprehension of which you and I are, as it were histological cells.13 In this sense, i.e., in terms of the social nature of persona l identity, Peirce bears some resemblance to the ideal of humanity expressed by Bradley s My Station and Its Duties.14 In this model self is realized as it is merged with the whole, as it accepts its role and becomes immersed in the performance of its function within the community which is, as it is for Peirce, the analog to a biological organism. Bradley himself seems to 11. Hoopes, Community Denied, 11. 12. CP 1.354. 13. NEM 4:144. 14. F. H. Bradley, Ethical Studies (London: Henry S. King & Co., 1876), 145ff.

PAGE 318

309 have sensed the limitations of this analogy. W ith a fine disregard for the question of how far the comparison of community to organism can be taken, he reminds us that the members of the social organism are self-cons cious whereas the organs of an animal are not.15 Given Peirces view of self-consciou sness as something which the individual becomes aware of by becoming aware of the non -self, and his view of matter as effete mind, the analogy seems stronger in Peirces case than in Bradleys. However, community was, for Peirce no less than for Brad ley, something greater than the sum of its parts, more than the collection of individuals comprising it. At a pr actical level there was something very important at stake: Whether men really have anything in common, so that the community is to be considered as an end in itself, and if so, what the relative value of the two factors is, is the most funda mental practical questi on in regard to every public institution the constitution of which we have it in our power to influence.16 As we saw in chapter four, Peirces 1892 essay for The Monist, Mans Glassy Essence,17 included a discussion of the constitution and behavior of the simplest forms of protoplasm. The properties of liquefacti on, food assimilation, waste expulsion, growth, and reproduction were examined as habits of conduct, wherein one molecule affects another, and that, for Peirce, evoked the pr operties of mind. To th e extent that the molecules of a slime-mould exhibit reaction to stimuli, a propensity for patterns of behavior under controlled conditions, and th e occasional departure from regularity under unusual conditions, they suggested the elem ents of mental action. Questions of 15. Stewart Candlish, Bradley on My Station and Its Duties, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 56 (August 1978), 158. 16. CP 8.38. 17. CP 6.238-71.

PAGE 319

310 anthropomorphism aside, Peirce continued by arguing that all mind is directly or indirectly connected with all ma tter, and acts in a more or le ss regular way; so that all mind more or less partakes of the nature of matter.18 Mind, no less than matter, is governed by habit and the c onsciousness of habit is a ge neral idea. Furthermore: the consciousness of a ge neral idea has a certain un ity of the ego in it, which is identical when it passes from one mind to another. It is, therefore, quite analogous to a person, and, indeed, a person is only a particular kind of general idea. Long ago I pointed out that a person is nothing but a symbol involving a general idea; but my views were, then, too nominalistic to enable me to see that every general idea has the unified living feeling of a person.19 Two things are clearly in evidence he re. First, the continu ity of matter with mind, in which the physical properties of protoplasm e xhibit the traits of mental action, presents us with a view of the universe as organic in every sense of the word. Secondly, as he went on to conclude in this essay, the personi fication of the world extends to the social structures that are comprise d of individual persons. It is true that when the generalizati on of feeling has been carried so far as to include all within a person, a st opping-place, in a certain sense, has been attained; and further generalizat ion will have a less lively character. But we must not think it will cease. Esprit de corps national sentiment, sympathy, are no mere metaphors. None of us can fully realize what the minds of corporations are, any more than one of my brain-cells can know what the whole brain is thinking.20 This allows Peirce to view human communitie s not only as the analog to colonies of social insects and the flocks, herds, and packs of higher animals, w ithin which individual behavior can be studied, but al so as fundamental and egocen tric entities with their own habits, exerting forces upon their constituents, forces which the members may not 18. CP 6.268. 19. CP 6.270. 20. CP 6.271.

PAGE 320

311 individually cognize, any more than a single affected brai n-cell cognizes the thought of the whole brain. This view of community becomes paradigmatic for Peirces understanding of the social nature of logic, reality and truth. This brings us to Peirces view of society as a greater person. Following his assertion that esprit de corps national sentiment, and sympathy are no mere metaphors, he says that the law of mi nd clearly points to the existen ce of such personalities, and there are many ordinary observations which, if they were critically examined and supplemented by special experiments, might, as first appearances pr omise, give evidence of the influence of such greater persons upon individuals.21 He follows this with several examples, both secular and non-s ecular in nature, where all the individual members of a given group were moved, sometimes without mu tual knowledge, acting in unison in some capacity as a corporate personality. We should be reminded that Peirce at tached the notion of corporate personality to the social instincts. Social instincts were those that Peirce saw as adapted to the preservation of the species. Sometimes, as he noted, social instincts are expensive to the individual, even dangerous, sometimes fatal.22 Peirce understood something that Darwin saw straight through to the bottom, that to explain altruistic behavior the unit of selection cannot be the indivi dual, since moral acts usually offer him no advantage. The unit of selection must be the whole tribe or community.23 Selfish instincts are adapted to the preservation of the stock, if at all through preserving the individual in whom the 21. Ibid. 22. CP 7.378. 23. Robert J. Richards, Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 446. Some may argue that Peirce interpreted Darwin as supporting individualism, and re jected his position accordingly. See, e.g., CP 6.293.

PAGE 321

312 instinct acts; social instincts are adaptiv e primarily to the advantage of some other individual or individua ls than the agent.24 Thus, the phenomenon of altruism, evidenced in many species throughout the animal kingdom, is clearly a social instinct.25 For Peirce, altruism was not only noble, but logical, and thus the moral dut y of every investigator. That logic rigidly requires, before all else, that no determinate fact, nothing which can happen to a ma ns self, should be of more consequence to him than everything else. He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the world, is illogical in all his inferences, collectively. So the social principle is r ooted intrinsically in logic.26 This understanding of altruism, as we will see, became central to his understanding of inquiry. One final point on Peirces view of th e nature of community is that it clearly owes something to the Greek notion of polis. Though he did not make reference to the idea of the polis in his publications, it seems reasonable th at his idealized community of minds has Hellenistic roots. Wells acknowledges that for Peirce t he pseudo-terminus [or end] of the world is a community of minds; recal ling that the best translation of the Greek word polis into present-day English is not city, s tate, or city-state , but community, we may compare Peirces ideal of a worl d community with the ancient ideal of a cosmopolis. 27 Wells draws this conclu sion despite, as is well known, Peirces having paid virtually no mind to political philosophy. The Peircean community of minds is the aim, or as he put it on one occasion, the great hope of human evolution.28 Through the 24. CP 7.378. 25. For a biological view of human altruism, see Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 149ff. 26. CP 5.354, cf, CP 2.654. 27. Rulon Wells, Peirce as an American, in Perspectives on Peirce, ed. Richard J. Bernstein (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1965), 22. 28. CP 5.487.

PAGE 322

313 use of one of his favorite metaphors Peirce de scribed this community as the place where individual minds and their wills, their ideas, their views and their f eelings are welded together.29 C. Community, Reality, and Probability As we have seen, Peirce postulated three logical or social sentiments which are necessary for the grounding or founding of logic and thus presupposed in correct reasoning. These social sentiments clearly established the foundational connection between virtuous emotions and correct reasoning.30 Bernstein points out that the social sentiments also established the elementary st atus of community. Pei rce saw clearly that the notion of community is not like a supe rstructure resting on a more fundamental epistemological and metaphysical foundation, but is intimately bound up with our very conceptions of reality, knowledge and semiosis.31 The idea of the social nature of reality was first heralded in the Cognition Series wh ere Peirce had written: t he very origin of the conception of reality shows that this c onception essentially i nvolves the notion of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits, and capable of a definite increase of knowledge.32 The concept of reality implies community, not vice versa.33 This remained a vital tenet of his philosophy for the next forty-five years. Peirces work during the first decade of the twentieth century especially served to underscore the view 29. See Wells, Peirce as an American, 38 ff, for a comprehensive study of the frequent use of this metaphor in Peirces writings. 30. Kemp-Pritchard, Peirce on Philosophical Hope and Logical Sentiment, 75. 31. Richard J. Bernstein, Toward a More Rational Community, in Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress, eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch, and Charles S. Hardwick (Lubbock: Texas Tech University, 1981), 115. 32. CP 5.311. 33. Hoopes, Community Denied, 45.

PAGE 323

314 first expressed in 1868, that the ideal perf ection of knowledge by which we have seen that reality is constituted must thus belong to a community in which this identification is complete.34 The social theory of reality begins w ith the activity of inquiry. The real is what is disclosed through the applicati on of empirical method; it is also called the stable belief expressed in that ultimate opinion resulting, in the long run, from the persistent following of the method of science.35 Inquiry, in turn, rests upon the logical sentiments. In 1902 Peirce had written all th at logic warrants is a hope and not a belief.36 Earlier he had claimed that when we busy ourselves to find the answer to a question, we are going upon the hope that there is an answer, which can be called the answer, that is, the final answer which sufficient inquiry will compel us to accept.37 Similarly, when we discuss a vexed question, we hope that there is some ascertainab le truth about it, and that the discussion is not to go on forever and to no purpose.38 The answer, the ascertainable truth, paradoxically, entails hope in the un limited continuance of intellectual activity which implicitly entails the existence of an indefinite community of investigators. As Peirce viewed it, reality is bound up in the defini tion of truth: The opi nion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investig ate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in th is opinion is the real.39 Reality, in turn, is the product of an idealized intersubjectivity: The real is the idea in which the community ultimately settles 34. CP 5.356. 35. Smith, Community and Reality, 104. 36. CP 2.113. 37. CP 4.61. 38. CP 2.113. 39. CP 5.407.

PAGE 324

315 down.40 As fated or destined, this opinion is one that rests not only on faith in the activity of an indefinite community with whic h one can identify his or her own interests, but hope in its continued existence. [A]ll this requires a conceived identifi cation of ones interests with those of an unlimited community. Now, there exist no reasons for thinking that the human race, or any intellectual race, will exist forever. On the other hand, there can be no reason agai nst it; and, fortunately, as the whole requirement is that we should have certain sentiments, there is nothing in the facts to forbid our having a hope or calm and cheerful wish, that the community may last beyond any assignable date.41 Such hope is grounded in a theory of pr obabilistic reasoning, as Christopher Hookway explains: Inquiry and deliberation rest upon a framework of assumptions and standards which function as hopes; and inquirers incur the obligation eventually to explain why those hopes were, in fact, warranted. One task of (properly scientific) metaphysics is to provide an account of reality which explains why those hopes were in fact correct. Although these themes became prominent in Peirce s thought only after the mid-1890s, they were implicit in the early disc ussions of probabilistic reasoning: one of the logical sentiments was hope that the scientific community would endure for long enough to bene fit from the policy of drawing inferences on the basis of probabilities.42 The early work in which this explanation was first attempted is entitled The Doctrine of Chances, the third paper of the six Illustrati ons of the Logic of Sc ience, that appeared in Popular Science Monthly an essay which contains the important insight that Hilary Putnam calls Peirces Puzzle.43 40. CP 6.610. 41. CP 2.654. 42. Christopher Hookway, Sentiment and Self-Control, in The Rule of Reason: The Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce eds. Jacqueline Brunning and Paul Forster (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 211. 43. Popular Science Monthly 12 (March 1878): 604-615; also published in CP 2.645-60. See Hilary Putnam, The Many Faces of Realism (Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1987), 80ff.

PAGE 325

316 Peirces Puzzle is a way of ques tioning the propriety of acting according to the precepts of logical probability, which is root ed in a kind of hope. As Peirce correctly noted: the idea of probability essentially bel ongs to a kind of inference which is repeated indefinitely. An individual inference must either be true or false, and can show no effect on probabi lity; and, therefore, in reference to a single case considered in itself, probability can have no meaning.44 In vital matters of choice based on an inferen ce that cannot be repeat ed, such as Peirces hypothetical decision involving personal immorta lity or Putnams suggested substitute of a choice between an easy death and a hard de ath, one would reasonably opt for whatever strategy that would increase his or he r odds of gaining the desirable outcome.45 [I]f a man had to choose between draw ing a card from a pack containing twenty-five red cards and a black one, or from a pack containing twentyfive black cards and a red one, and if the drawing of a red card were destined to transport him to eternal felicity, and that of a black one to consign him to everlasting woe, it would be folly to deny that he ought to prefer the pack containing the larger proportion of red cards, although, from the nature of the risk, it could not be repeated. It is not easy to reconcile this with our analysis of the conception of chance.46 The question for Peirce is why should he or she choose from the pack of predominately red cards? Probable inference is based on repeated and repeatable outcomes, employing the method of success frequencies found, for in stance, in actuaria l calculations. In situations that are not repeat able, that are by definition limite d to a single situation, we are confronted with Peirces Puzzle. 44. CP 2.652. 45. Putnam, The Many Faces of Realism, 81. 46. CP 2.652.

PAGE 326

317 Citing Reichenbachs position that probability statements concerning unrepeatable cases are simply a fictitious transfer of our knowledge of relative frequencies over time, Putnam notes that: the very statement that Jones will have only one chance in twenty-five [ sic ] of eternal felicity this one time is a projection. There is no fact about the single unrepeatab le situation which is the fact that [the choice of a card from the pack of predominantly red cards] gives Jones twentyfour chances out of twenty-five [sic] of eternal felicity. Peirces problem comes out very clearly if we take the view that probability just is relative frequency in the long run. The pers on in the situation knows a fact which is utterly irrelevant to what he should do. He knows that if there were a series of situations like this one, then he would have eternal felicity twenty-four times out of ever y twenty-five if he were to choose [from the pack of predominantly red cards] each time. But a person can have eternal felicity or everlasti ng woe only once! His problem is not how to achieve eternal felicity twenty-four times out of every twentyfive ; his problem is to obtain eternal felicity this time.47 Why, therefore, should one pick from the p ack of predominately red cards? Peirces answer is an appeal to altruism and commun ity. By identifying my in terests with those of the indefinite community, Peirce asserted that I am able to infer the reasonableness of selecting a card from the pack of predominan tly red ones. I would be acting on a rule that would, if employed by the fellow members of my community, produce eternal felicity twenty-five times out of twenty-six. This is a logical fact and no mere individualistic projection. Putnam believes this reasoning is akin to the ethical reasoning of Rule Utilitarianism: in choosing this arrangement I am supporting, and helping to perpetuate, 47. Putnam, The Many Faces of Realism 82.

PAGE 327

318 a rule which will benefit mankind (or the community of rational investigators) in the long run.48 For Peirce: this makes logicality attainable enough. Sometimes we can personally attain to heroism. The soldier who runs to scale a wall knows that he probably will be shot, but that is not all he cares for. He also knows that if all the regiment, with whom he identifies himself, rush forward at once, the fort will be taken. In other cases we can only imitate the virtue. The man whom we have supposed as having to draw from the two packs, who if he is not a logician wi ll draw from the red pack from mere habit, will see, if he is logician enough, that he cannot be logical so long as he is concerned only with his ow n fate, but that man who should care equally for what was to happen in all possible cases of the sort could act logically, and would draw from the pack with the most red cards, and thus, though incapable himself of such sublimity, our logician would imitate the effect of that mans cour age in order to share his logicality.49 Putnam, however, sees this response as hi ghly unlikely. The identity of ones own interests with those benefiting members of the community is out of place in just such a case. Can it really be that th e reason I would choose [to select a card from the pack of predominantly red cards] is that I am altruistic ? Maybe I am, but isnt it obvious that I w ould choose [this] arrangement first and foremost because it would avoid everlasting woe in my own case ? If my only reason for believing that I should be reasonable were my beliefs about what will happen in the long run if I act or believe reasonably, then I would have absolutely no reason (apart from the implausible reason of altruism) to think it better to be r easonable in an unrepeatable single case like the one described.50 So far as it goes, Putnams dism issal of Peirces solution of a conceived identification of ones interests wi th those of an unlimited community51 as incredible, is compelling. Hookway concedes there is ample ev idence that the appeal to altruism in a 48. Ibid. 84. 49. CP 2.654. 50. Putnam, The Many Faces of Realism, 84. 51. CP 2.654.

PAGE 328

319 case of vital concern, i.e., the question of ones eternal happi ness or woe, is probably the product of Peirces own confusion regardi ng the differing demands of rationality in matters of theory and practice during the 1870s.52 As Peirce came to believe, matters of vital concern must be settled without recourse to probabilistic calculation, to scientific reflection about the long run and the good of the community. Thus it would appear that appeals to altruism and the long-run benefit to the community are out of place in such fateful decisions and matters of vital concern. D. Agapism As we observed in chapter four, Pe irce harbored a lifelong suspicion toward all forms of individualism. The process of inquiry is clearly no individua l affair. Reality, no less than truth, is tied to the opinion of th e community. The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning w ould finally result in, a nd which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you.53 This assertion, as weve seen, rests upon the logical sentiments which embody th e notion of a community. The notion of community is made possible because the law of love is operative as a creative force in the universe. Peirce developed what he termed his agapism54 in the final essay of the five part series for The Monist. In this last essay, a highly romanticized piece he called Evolutionary Love,55 he attempted to spell out his belief that agape operates as one of three discernible types of e volution. Evolutionary love en tails sentimentalism which, as 52. Hookway, Sentiment and Self-Control, 218. 53. CP 5.311. 54. Of this doctrine, Wiener observed that for sheer speculative audacity [it] was a worthy rival of the absolutism of Schelling and Hegel. Philip P. Wiener, Evolution and the Founders of Pragmatism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), 76-7. 55. The Monist 3 (October 1892): 1-22; also published in CP 6.287-317.

PAGE 329

320 we noted in the last chapter, is the doctrine th at great respect shoul d be paid to the natural judgments of the sensible heart.56 It is the force that makes possible the communicability of feeling and the sympathy of ideas.57 Agapism is contrasted with evolu tion by natural selection or fortuitous variation and evolution by mechanical necessity. Evolu tion by fortuitous variation is associated with the theory of Darwin and is termed tychasm .58 Interestingly, this essay betrays Peirces ambivalence toward Darwinian evol ution. Evolution by mechanical necessity is associated with the thought of Karl Ngeli, Albert von Klliker and August Weismann and is termed anacasm .59 Juxtaposed with tychasm and an acasm is the theory that Peirce associated with Jean-Baptiste de Lamarcks theory. Evolution by sporting and evolut ion by mechanical necessity are conceptions warring against one another. A third method, which supersedes their strife, lies enwr apped in the theory of Lamarck. According to his view, all that dis tinguishes the highest organic forms from the most rudimentary has been brought about by little hypertrophies or atrophies which have affected individuals early in their lives, and have been transmitted to their offspring. Such a transmission of acquired characters is of the ge neral nature of habit-taking Its action is essentially dissimilar to that of a physical force; and that is the secret of the repugnance of such necessitarians as Weismann to admitting its existence.60 Habit, which is merely inertia, acts upon the novel forms generated by Lamarckian evolution by codifying changes. Habit forces them to take practical shapes, compatible with the structures they affect, and, in the form of heredity and otherwise, gradually replaces the spontaneous energy that sustains them. Thus, 56. CP 6.292. 57. CP 6.307. 58. CP 6.302. 59. CP 6.298. 60. CP 6.299.

PAGE 330

321 habit plays a double part; it serves to establish the new features, and also to bring them into harmony with th e general morphology and function of the animals and plants to which th ey belong. [T]he reader will see that this account of Lamarckian e volution coincides with the general description of the action of love 61 As its name suggests, the theo ry of agapism (alternately agapasm or agapasticism) has theological roots, and, as far as providing a context for what is purported to be a scientific explanation of the universes functioning, this is unfortunate. Peirces description of evolutio nary love is certainly laced with religious idiom, and as was the case with his depiction of the logical sentiments, the no tion of agape clearly owed something to the Pauline missives of th e Christian Bible. However, as Hausman is quick to point out, the conceptual advant ages it has as a hypothesis for interpreting evolution can be offered without reference to Christianity.62 Peirce required several things fr om agapism. In language oddly reminiscent of Whiteheads metaphysical writings, he suggested that there probably in nature is some agency by which complexity and diversity is increased.63 Later, in Evolutionary Love, 61. CP 6.300. 62. Carl R. Hausman, Charles S. Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 171. 63. CP 6.58. The striking similarity in the language, if not the concepts, employed by Peirce in The Monist series of 1891-3 and by Whitehead in Process and Reality a revision of his Gifford Lectures of 1927-8 warrants further investigation. Whitehead arrive d at Harvard in 1924. The first collection of Peirces essays, Chance, Love, and Logic edited by Morris Cohen, and containing all five articles from The Monist series, had appeared in 1923. While there is scant evidence that Wh itehead had more than a passing interest in the Peirce Papers, housed at Harvard beginning in 1915, his paper grader, the newly-minted Ph.D., Charles Hartshorne, was very much interested, an d, with Paul Weiss, was put to the task of editing the first six volumes of the Collected Papers when C.I. Lewis decided to pursue other interests. In an interview in 1970, Hartshorne remembered showing Wh itehead some of Peirces papers: Whitehead read several pages in which Peirce sounded rather like Wh itehead talking for instance about the irrevocable past and the indeterminate future, and Whitehead said to me, I hope you will testify that this is the first time I have seen this. When I told him that I could find some of his characteristic ideas in Peirce he said, Then I say hes a great man. Im bound to. [From Charles Hartshornes Recollections of Editing the Peirce Papers, an Interview by Irwin C. Lieb, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 6 (SummerFall 1970): 157]. Reflecting on his research experien ces as Peirces biographer, Joseph Brent commented: I wonder if Whitehead would have written just the way he did without knowledge of Peirces work The

PAGE 331

322 this agency through which new elements of fo rm are first created, is tied to Lamarcks theory and labeled in a distinctly Pe ircean term as energetic projaculation.64 Secondly, agape supplies the need for a source of uniformity in nature.65 As we saw in the last chapter, the interaction of spontaneity and mechanical necessity produces another kind of causation, such as seems to be operative in the mind of the form ation of associations, and enables us to understand how the uniform ity of nature could have been brought about.66 This view of nature, Hausman point s out, allowed Peirce to establish a continuum between chance and necessity, the idea of lawfulness as inseparable from spontaneity, which is one of the c onditions under which agape functions.67 As we noted, Peirce claimed elsewhere in the Monist series, that mind, no less than matter, is governed by habit.68 Thirdly, Peirce needed agapism to establish the objectivity of mind as an agent in the universe, apart from the mere feeling or inward aspect of the individual self. by supposing the rigid exactitude of causation to yield, I care not how little be it but by a strictly infi nitesimal amount we gain room to insert mind into our scheme, and to put it into the place where it is needed, into the position which, as th e sole self-intellig ible thing, it is entitled to occupy, that of the fountain of existen ce; and in so doing we resolve to problem of the connection of soul and body.69 issue of the extent of Peirces unrecognized influence is a genuine one. [From Joseph Brent, The Singular Experience of the Peirce Biographer, see Arisbe website: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/ library/aboutcsp/brent/singular.htm (accessed September 2008)]. 64. CP 6.300. 65. Hausman, Charles Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy, 172. 66. CP 6.60. 67. Hausman, Charles Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy, 173 68. CP 6.270. 69. CP 6.61.

PAGE 332

323 Finally, agapism provided Peirce with the m echanism of what he termed developmental teleology, the means by which the universe b ecomes self-intelligible and self-actualized, without the operation of either rigid necessity or pure chance. Agape, the third form of evoluti on, incorporates elements of both tychism and anacasm. Agapasm is evolution that include s chance and necessity and something else: it is the synthesis of chance and necessity, whic h is not reducible to either or to both simply added together.70 Agapism provides the dynamic, self-determining, and ultimately purposive element of the universe. Through creative love Peirce was able to impose the principle of continuity on the workings of the universe. Endowment of the universe with the element of harmonious, self-determining continuity implied, for Peirce, a moral prin ciple. Progress toward an end could be possible only to the degree that individual will was superseded by selfless love. It is at this point that his hypothesis for interpre ting evolution took on a decidedly Manichean flavor and his religious bias was revealed. Here, then, is the issue. The gospel of Christ says that progress comes from every individual merging his individuality in sympathy with his neighbors. On the other side, the convi ction of the nineteenth century is that progress takes place by virtue of every individuals striving for himself with all his might and trampling his neighbor under foot whenever he gets a chance to do so. This may accurately be called the Gospel of Greed.71 The evangelist of this Gospel of Greed was clearly Darwin. The Origin of Species of Darwin merely exte nds politico-economical views of progress to the entire realm of animal and vegetable life. The vast majority of our contemporary na turalists hold the opinion that the true cause of those exquisite and ma rvelous adaptations of nature for 70. Hausman, Charles Peirces Evolutionary Philosophy, 174. 71. CP 6.294.

PAGE 333

324 which, when I was a boy, men used to extol the divine wisdom, is that creatures are so crowded together that those of them that happen to have the slightest advantage force t hose less pushing into situations unfavorable to multiplication or even kill them before they reach the age of reproduction. Among animals, the me re mechanical individualism is vastly renforced as a power making for good by the animals ruthless greed. As Darwin puts it on his title-pa ge, it is the struggle for existence; and he should have added for his motto: Every individual for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost!72 Peirce was certainly not alone in seeing Darwin as having ex tended to the human animal a materialist view of nature, with its cold-bloode d will-to-survive-at-all-costs imbued in the heart of every individual creature. Richards argues that by the close of the nineteenth century, this was a common view that fueled much of the confla gration over evolution. Such a view was, however, at variance with the facts. Darwin, perhaps more forcefully than any of his disciples, attempted to infuse human nature with an authentic moral sense: altruistic behavior did not di sguise a more fundamental util itarian selfishness but instead revealed a divine spark li ghting the rest of nature.73 The moral sense of human beings, understood as a motivating feeling to act on beha lf of others or suffer the pangs of guilt for resisting it was, for Darwin, a species of social instinct, and was to be understood as the capacity of the individual to see him or he rself in relation to others, bonded to social wholes, the preservation of which was in the ultimate interest of each member. Social instincts comprised behavior s that nurtured offspring, secured their welfare, produced cooperation among kin, and organized the group into a functional unit. The principa l mechanism of their evolution, in Darwins view, was community selectio n: that kind of natural selection operating at levels of organization hi gher than the individual. The degree to which social instincts welded together a society out of its striving members depended on the species and its special conditions. Community selection worked most effectively am ong the social insects, but Darwin 72. CP 6.293. 73. Richards, Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior, 504.

PAGE 334

325 thought its power was in evidence among all socially dependent animals, including that most socia lly advanced creature, man.74 We have already noted Peirces understanding and description of the social instincts and the considerable influence of Darwin on his thinking. This characteri zation of Darwin as the purveyor of the gospel of greed in biology can thus best be viewed as a straw man. Darwins understanding of comm unity selection certainly has pa rallels to Peirces general understanding of community and his theory of moral sense as a capacity for altruistic action has much common ground with Peirces own views. E. Community and Normativity Peirces interest in the normative sciences was a relatively late development. It was largely an outgrowth of his attempts to re fine and redefine his pragmatism in the first decade of the twentieth century. His intere st was focused primarily on logic as a regulative principle; only in this way did it ex tend to ethics and aesthetics, and then only in the most general way. By this time, he ha d shifted his thinking to the view that logic was part of semiotic. In a 1908 letter to the British mathematician and philosopher, P.E.B. Jourdain, he wrote: We think in signs; and indeed medita tion takes the form of a dialogue in which one makes constant appeal to hi s self of a subsequent moment for ratification of his meaning in resp ect to his thought = signs really representing the objects they profess to represent. Logic therefore is almost a branch of ethics, being the theory of the control of signs in respect to their relation to their objects.75 74. Ibid., 599. 75. NEM 3:886.

PAGE 335

326 Brent contends that Peirces newly found intere st in ethics also re sulted from Peirces finally coming to see the connection between his professional and economic failings and his moral turpitude. [Peirce] said of himself, For long years I suffered unspeakably from ignorance of how to go to work to acquire sovereignty over myself. His despair and self-loathing finally drov e him to change his ways, and in 1905, he was reconstructing the pragma tism of the Illustrations of twenty-seven years before so that it would show not only its origin in the doctrine of signs, but its dependence on ethics, the requirement for selfcontrol.76 Helmut Pape sees both of these sources of Peirces reconstructed pragmatism as intertwined and inseparable. This conclusion is traceable to Peirces own restatement of the pragmatic maxim in 1905: I will restate [the pragmatic maxim of 1878] in other words, since ofttimes one can thus eliminate some unsuspected source of perplexity to the reader. This time it shall be in the indicative mood, as follows: The entire intellectual purport of any symbol consists in the total of all general modes of rational conduc t which, conditionally upon all the possible different circumstances a nd desires, would ensue upon the acceptance of the symbol.77 Four paragraphs later, Peirce added, For it is to conceptions of deliberate conduct that Pragmaticism would trace the in tellectual purport of symbols; and deliberate conduct is self-controlled conduct.78 The use and control of signs to express beliefs and to direct action is an ethical concern a nd, of course, what has ethical implication also has social and political implication. In 1903, Peirce described what he meant by the ethics of assertion. 76. Joseph Brent, Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1993), 341. 77. CP 5.438. 78. CP 5.442.

PAGE 336

327 d wrote: an act of assertion supposes that a proposition being formulated, a person performs an act which renders him liable to the penalties of the social (or, at any rate, those of th e moral law) in case it should not be true, unless he has a definite and suff icient excuse; and an act of assent is an act of the mind by which one e ndeavors to impress the meanings of the proposition upon his disposition, so that it shall govern his conduct, including thought under conduc t, this habit being r eady to be broken in case reasons should appear for breaking it.79 Papes interpretation of Peirce s pragmatism seems to be that assenting to a proposition (i.e., believing it to be true) and asserting a belief (i.e., publicly pronouncing it to be true) involves normativity in two di stinct, but related senses. In the first sense, the proposition is an inner habit of thought or thought-sign that structures the behavior of the thinker of th is proposition.80 The second sense follows from the act of public assertion of a belief and results in accountability for the truth of what is asserted under thr eat of public sanction or consequence.81 Peirce did not make it entirely clear just what such pena lties might entail, th ough his biography woul have undoubtedly provided a fair sampling. He does, however, give us a hint in a later passage on assertion. In a 1905 letter to James he Now an assertion belongs to the cla ss of phenomena like going before a notary and making an affidavit, ex ecuting a deed, signing a note, of which the essence is that one voluntarily puts oneself into a situation in which penalties will be incurred un less some proposition is true. One may maintain that every proposition involves an assertion. Very likely that may be true as a psychological truth; but if so the element of assertion is frequently altogether or in great degree inhibited and disavowed. I have nothing furt her to say about assertion.82 79. CP 2.315. 80. Helmut Pape, Pragmatism and the Normativity of Assertion, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 38 (Fall 2002): 524. 81. Ibid. 82. CP 8.313.

PAGE 337

328 In other passages, Peirce likened the notion of assertion to a promise of future payment, and to swearing an oath in court.83 Presumably, social sancti ons include, but likely are not exhausted by, legal penalty. Certainly one who asserts, promises, or swears falsely also runs the risk of social stigma and ostr acism for having violated the moral law. In a lengthy letter to Welby on signs and the categor ies, he expressed himself on the subject three months before the missive to James just quoted. According to my present view (I may s ee more light in future) the act of assertion is not a pure act of signification. It is an exhibition of the fact that one subjects oneself to the pe nalties visited on a liar if the proposition is not true. An act of j udgment is the self-recognition of a belief; and a belief consists in the deliberate acceptan ce of a proposition as a basis of conduct.84 In any event, within the first few years of the twentieth century, Peirce had come to see assertion as involving something more than th e mere utterance of thought-signs. It is, as Peirce put it elsewhere, an action that is related to our thought ( MS 599, 1902, & in MS 499/499s, 1906) by which we take responsib ility for the truth of a proposition.85 Tom Short claims that, at least in this sense, Peirces position presaged Austins famous dictum that saying I know that is a sort of performative utterance, akin to saying I promise, making one vulnerable to censure if what is said turns out not to be true.86 The act of public assertion, by which the declarer becomes liable for social and moral sanctions, refers us back to the social status of normativity for the belief that is asserted. Pape explains that what determines the validity of an assertion as well as the validity of the rules I am using is indepe ndent of my conduct as an individual: there 83. CP 5.546. 84. CP 8.337. 85. Pape, Pragmatism and the Normativity of Assertion, 525. 86. T.L. Short, Peirces Theory of Signs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 243.

PAGE 338

329 s can be no inferential or semiotical rules which are valid for me alone.87 A social theory of logic, or logic viewed almo st as a branch of ethics, im plies that my interests and the interests of the community are one in the use of signs. This identification, or as Peirce called it personification, becomes in stinctive through enculturation. Cannot a man act under the influence of a vague personification of the community and yet according to a general rule of conduct? Certainly: he so acts when he conforms to custom Conformity to a norm may take place by an immediate impulse. It th en becomes instinctive imitation. But here the man does not vaguely personify the community, but puts himself in the shoes of another perso n, as we say. I call this putting of oneself in anothers place, retroconsciousness.88 As we learned in chapter three, such norms are symbols. A Symbol is a sign which refers to the Object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause the Symbol to be interpreted as referring to that Object. It is thus itself a general type or law, that is, a legisign.89 Symbols represent their objects by incorporating a habit or habits of interpretation.90 Such is any utterance of speech which signifies what it does only by vi rtue of its being unde rstood to have that signification.91 Finally, every symbol is an ens rationis because it consists in a habit, in a regularity; now every regularity consists in the future conditional occurrence of fact not themselves that regularity.92 Or, in the slightly differe nt way Peirce stated it earlier in the same essay, The being of a symbol consists in th e real fact that something surely will be experienced if certain conditi ons be satisfied. Namely, it will 87. Pape, Pragmatism and the Normativity of Assertion, 534. 88. CP 1.586 (1903). 89. EP 2:292 (1903). 90. CP 4.531 (1906). 91. P 2:304 (1902) cf EP 2:461 (1909). 92. CP 4.464 (1903).

PAGE 339

330 influence the thought and conduct of its interpreter. Every word is a symbol. Every sentence is a symbol. Every book is a symbol. Every representamen depending upon conventions is a symbol.93 Thus, Pape concludes The reason why the normativity of belief depends on its social status and the reason why we have to accept the sa nctions of social obligations, if the belief does not fulfill the required standards, is th e role the belief plays in the communicative and inferen tial use for us or in a community of interpreters. If other people trust my assertion, they will use what I say as a premise for their inferences and interpretations as I do with theirs. For this reason, the meaning of my beliefs depends on what, in the long run, the community of inve stigators will accept as valid logical inferences and interpretations. It is the inferential and communicative context of a community of reasoners /interpreters for which the meaning and seriousness of assertions is important.94 Pape goes on to explore the social status of the logical rules themselves in Peirces writings, a study beyond the scope of th e present work, but integral to the grand work that Peirce proposed in his grant a pplication to the newly formed Carnegie Institution in 1902. There, in answer to his own question What am I prepared deliberately to accept as the stat ement of what I want to do, what am I to aim at, what am I after?, he would demonstr ate, in the span of a pla nned three dozen Memoirs on Minute Logic, that logic is a means of attaining the end of thought, that life can have but one end [and] it is Et hics which defines that end.95 The irony was that, the esteem with which the Peirce family was held by Ha rvard community (his grandfather had been the Universitys first historian, his father Benjamin, a highly revered professor and founding member of the National Academy of Sc iences, his brother James, dean of the 93. CP 4.447. Dates have been inserted to indicate Pe irces focus on this subject during the first decade of the twentieth century. 94. Pape, Pragmatism and the Normativity of Assertion, 535. 95. CP 2.198.

PAGE 340

331 Mathematics department, and his other brother Herbert, an under-Secretary of State), the social and political connections he enjoyed and the favors he could cull in support of his Carnegie application (those who wrote letters to the grant committee in s upport included his first cousin, Henry Cabot Lodge; the astr onomer and aeronautics pioneer, Samuel P. Langley; the bridge-builder and engineer, George S. Morison; the mathematician, William Pepperell Montague; the psychologist s J. McKeen Cattell and William James; and even President Theodore Roosevelt, w hom Peirces cousin Senator Lodge had fascinated with the tale of Peirces life) was not enough to overcome his reputation for personal and professional failure.96 The grant application was de nied, in part the residual outcome of his banishment from the academy a nd twenty years of self-imposed exile in the wilds of northeastern Penns ylvania. He remained a pariah to the community of investigators he lauded as so v ital to the pursuit of truth. 96. Brent, Peirce: A Life 278ff.

PAGE 341

332 References Anderson, Douglas R. 1986. The evoluti on of Peirces concept of abduction. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (2):145-64. ______. 1987. Creativity and the philosophy of C.S. Peirce The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ______. 1995. Strands of system West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press. Apel, Karl-Otto. 1981. Charles S. Peirce: From pragmatism to pragmaticism. Trans. John Michael Krois. Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press. Ayim, Maryann. 1974. Retroduction: The rational instinct. In Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 10 (1):39. ______. 1981. Theory, practice, and Peircean pragmatism. In Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fi sch and Charles S. Hardwick, 45-53. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. ______. 1982. Peirces view of the roles of reas on and instinct in scientific inquiry Meerut, India: Anu Prakashan. Bain, Alexander. 1868. The senses and the intellect 3rd ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Reference is to the 2004 unabridged facsimile of this edition by Elibron Classics series. Adamant Media Corporation. ______. 1875. The emotion and the will 3rd ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Company. Reference is to the unabridged facsimile of this edition by the Elibron Classics series. Adamant Media Corporation, 2003. Baldwin, James Mark, ed. 1940. Dictionary of philosophy and psychology. 3 vols. New York: Peter Smith. Bentham, Jeremy. 1994. Chrestomathia and chrestomathia. Part 2. Introduced by Jeffrey Stern. Bristol, England: Thoemme s Press. Reprint of 1816 edition.

PAGE 342

333 Bernstein, Richard J. 1964. Peirce s theory of perception. In Studies of the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce, 2nd series, eds. Edward C. Moore and Richard S. Robin, 165-189. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. ______. 1965. Action, conduct, and self-control. In Perspectives on Peirce, ed. Richard J. Bernstein. New Haven: Yale University Press. ______. 1971. Praxis and action Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. ______. 1975. Charles Sanders Peirce and The Nation. In Charles Sanders Peirce, Contributions to The Nation Part 1, 1869-1893, compiled and annotated by Kenneth Laine Ketner. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. ______. 1981. Toward a more rational community. In Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress, eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fi sch, and Charles S. Hardwick, 115-120. Lubbock: Texas Tech University. Black, Max. 1962. Models and metaphors Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Bradley, F. H. 1876. Ethical studies. London: Henry S. King & Co. Brent, Joseph. 1993. Charles Sanders Peirce: A life Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ______. 1996. The singular experience of the Pe irce biographer. S ee Arisbe website: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/bre nt/singular.htm Brown, Thomas. 1820. Sketch of a system of the philosophy of the human mind Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute. In Significant contributions to the history of psychology, 1750-1920, Series A, Orientations, Vol. 1: The logic of condillac & sketch of a system of the philosophy of the human mind ed. Daniel N. Robinson. Washington DC: University Publications of America, 1977. ______. 1846. Lectures on the philos ophy of the human mind 2nd ed. 2 vols. Hallowell: Glazier, Masters & Smith. (Originall y published in 1820 by W. and C. Tait & Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 4 vols.) ______. 1846. On Dr. Reids classification of the mental phenomena. In Brown, Lectures on the philosophy of the human mind. Vol. 1, Lecture 33. Buchler, Justus. 1939. Charles Peirces empiricism. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.

PAGE 343

334 Burks, Arthur W. 1946. Peirces theory of abduction. Philosophy of Science 13 (4):301306. ______. 1980. Man: Sign or algorithm? A rhetorical analysis of Peirces semiotics. In Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 16 (4):279-292. Candlish, Stewart. 1978. Bradley on my station and its duties. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 56 (2):155-170. Caws, Peter, ed. 1980. Two centuries of philosophy in America. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield. Colapeitro, Vincent. 1989. Peirces approach to the self: A semiotic perspective on human subjectivity Albany: State University of New York Press. ______. 2003. Peirces critique of psychologism. In Philosophy, psychology, and psychologism, ed. Dale Jacquette, 157-180. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Crombie, James. 1980. Peirce on our knowledge of mind. In Two centuries of philosophy in America ed. Peter Caws. Totowa, New Je rsey: Rowman and Littlefield. Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured ra ces in the struggle for life London: John Murray. ______. 1871. The descent of man London: John Murray. ______. 1872. The expression of emoti on in man and animals. London: John Murray. Davidson, Donald. 2000. Mental events. In Materialism and the mind-body problem 2nd ed. Edited with an introduction by David M. Rosenthal, 232-248. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Comp any, Inc. (First published 1970 in Experience and theory ed. Lawrence Foster and J.W.Swanson, University of Massachusetts Press). Davis, William H. 1972. Peirces epistemology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Delaney, C.F. 1979. Peirces account of mental activity. Synthese 41 (1):25-36. ______. 1993. Science, knowledge and mind. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Dewey, John. 1935. Peirces theory of quality. The Journal of Philosophy 32 (26):701708.

PAGE 344

335 ______. 1946. Peirces theory of signs, thought, and meaning. The Journal of Philosophy 43 (4):85-95. Dixon, Thomas. 2003. From passions to emotions Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eco, Umberto. 1976. Peirces notion of interpretant. Modern Language Notes 91 (6): 1457-1472. Eisele, Carolyn, ed. 1976. The new elements of mathematics by Charles S. Peirce 4 vols. in 5. The Hague: Mouton Publis hers. Cited in the text as NEM ______. 1979. The influence of Galileo on Peirce. In Studies in the scientific and mathematical philosophy of Charles S. Peirce: Essays by Carolyn Eisele Ed. Richard M. Martin. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. ______, ed. 1985. Historical perspectives on Peirces logic of science 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton Publishers. Cited in the text as HP Esposito, Joseph L. 1980. Evolutionary metaphysics. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press. Factor, R. Lance. 1996. Peirces definiti on of metaphor and its consequences. In Peirces doctrine of signs, eds. Vincent M. Colapietro and Thomas M. Olshewsky, 229235. Berlin and New York : Mouton De Gruyter. Fann, K.T. 1970. Peirces theory of abduction. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Feibleman, James. 1946. An introduction to Peirces philosophy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Fisch, Max H. 1982. An unpsycholog ical view of logic. In Writings of Charles S. Peirce ed. Max H. Fisch, 1:305-322. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ______. 1986. Peirce, semiotic and pragmatism : Essays by Max H. Fisch Eds. Kenneth Laine Ketner and Christian J.W. Kloesel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fitzgerald, John J. 1997. Peirces theory of signs as foundation for pragmatism. The Hague & Paris: Mouton & Company. Flower, Elizabeth. 1980. Some interesti ng connections betwee n the common sense realists and the pragmatists, especially James. In Two centuries of philosophy in America ed. Peter Caws, 94-103. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield.

PAGE 345

336 Forster, Paul D. 1992. Peirce and the threat of nominalism. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28 (4):691-724. Frankfurt, Harry G. 1958. Pe irces notion of abduction. The Journal of Philosophy 55 (14):593-597. Franklin, Christine Ladd. 1916. Charle s S. Peirce at the Johns Hopkins. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 13 (26):715-722. Gaillie, W.B. 1966. Peirce and pragmatism. New York: Dover Publications. Gale, Richard M. 1997. John Deweys na turalization of W illiam James. In The Cambridge companion to William James ed. Ruth Anna Putnam, 49-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardiner, H.N. 1896. Notes. The Philosophical Review 5 (1):102-112. Goudge, Thomas A. 1950. The thought of C.S. Peirce. Toronto: The University of Toronto Press. Green, Nicolas St. John. 1933. Essays on tort and crime Ed. Frederick Green. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company. Greenlee, Douglas. 1973. Peirces concept of sign. The Hague: Mouton. Hamilton, William. 1856. Discussions on philosophy and literature, education and university reform. New York: Harper and Sons. Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and intervening Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hardwick, Charles S., ed. 1977. Semiotic and significs: The correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Lady Victoria Welby Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cited in the text as SS. ______. 1979. Peirces influence on some British philosophers. In Peirce Studies, no. 1, ed. Institute for Studies in Pragma tism, 25-30. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. Harrison, Stanley M. 1981. Peirce on persons. In Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial Congress, eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph Ransdell and Carolyn Eisele, 217-221. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press.

PAGE 346

337 Hartley, David. 1791. Observations on man, his frame, his duty and his expectations. 2nd ed. London: J. Johnson. Hartshorne, Charles. 1934. Foreword. The categories of Charles Peirce ed. Eugene Freeman. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company. Hausman, Carl R. 1993. Charles S. Peirces evolutionary philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______. 1996. Peirce and the interac tion view of metaphor. In Peirces doctrine of signs eds. Vincent M. Colapietro and Thom as M. Olshewsky, 193-203. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and time. Trans. John Macquarrie and E. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. ______. 1971. Poetry, language, thought Trans. Albert Hofstadt er. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Herzberger, Hans G. 1981. Peirces remarkable theorem. In Pragmatism and purpose, eds. L.W. Sumner, John G. Slater, and Fr ed Wilson, 41-59. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hickman, Larry. 1994. The products of pragmatism. In Living doubt, eds. Guy Debrock and Menno Hulswit, 13-24. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hi Henry. 1997. Peirces influence on logic in Poland. In Studies in the logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, eds. Nathan Houser, Don D. Roberts, and James Van Evra, 264270. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Hobbes, Thomas. 1996. Leviathan. Eds. Richard E. Flathm an and David Johnston. New York and London: W.W. No rton. First published in 1650. Hoffmann, Michael. 2000. Is there a logic of abduction? Institute fr Didaktik der Mathematik. See http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/idm/personen/mhoffman/ papers/abduction-logic.html ______. 2001. The 1903 classification of triadic si gn-relations. Digita l Encyclopedia of Charles S. Peirce, ed. Joo Qeuiros. S o Paulo (PUC). See the Peirce Digital Encyclopedia: http://www.digitalpei rce.fee.unicamp.br/ home.htm. Holmes, Larry. 1966. Peirce on self-control. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 2 (2):113-130.

PAGE 347

338 Hookway, Christopher. 1985. Peirce London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ______. 1994. Iconicity and logical form. Histoire pistmologie Langage 16 (1):53-64. ______. 1997. Sentiment and self-control. In The rule of reason: The philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce eds. Jacqueline Brunning and Paul Forster, 201-222. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hoopes, James. 1998. Community denied Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Houser, Nathan. 1992. The fortunes and misf ortunes of the Peirce papers. In Signs of humanity, eds. Michel Balat and Janice Dell edalleRhodes, 3:1259-1268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. See http://www.cspeirce.com/ menu/library/aboutcsp/ houser/fortunes.htm ______. 1992. Introduction to the Essential Peirce. Vol. 1. Eds. Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ______. 1992. Introduction to a guess at the riddle. The Essential Peirce. Eds. Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel, 1:245. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. ______, Christian Kloesel, and the Peir ce Edition Project, eds. 1992-99. The Essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings 2 vols. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hume, David. 1978. A treatise of human nature 2nd ed. Ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge with text revised and variant readings by P. H. Ni dditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huxley,Thomas. 1901. Hume 3rd ed. London: Macmillan and Company. Innis, Robert E. 1994. Consciousness and the play of signs. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Jacquette, Dale, ed. 2003. Philosophy, psychology, and psychologism Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. James, Henry, ed. 1920. The letters of William James 2 vols. Boston: The Atlantic Monthly Press. James, William. 1887. Some human instincts. The Popular Science Monthly 31:160-170, 666-681. ______. 1887. What is an instinct? Scribners Magazine 1:355-365.

PAGE 348

339 ______. 1890. The principles of psychology. 2 vols. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1890. Reprint 1950, New York: Dover Publications. All references will be to Dover Publications edition. ______. 1897. The will to believe, and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green, and Company. ______. 1904. Does consciousness exist? The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 1 (Sept.):477-491. ______. 1907. Pragmatism New York: Longmans, Green and Co. ______. 1982. The varieties of religious experience New York: Penguin Books. First published, 1902, Longman, Green, and Company. ______. 1983. Essays in psychology. Vol. 11 of The works of William James, ed. Frederick H. Burkhardt. Cambridge, Mass achusetts: Harvard University Press. ______. 1983. The feeling of effort. In Essays in psychology, Vol. 11 of The works of William James, 83-124. First published 1880, in Anniversary memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History. Boston: Boston Society of Natural History. ______. 1983. What is an emotion? In Essays in psychology Vol. 11 of The works of William James Originally published in Mind 9 (April 1884):188-205. Kant, Immanuel. 1952. Critique of judgement. Trans. James C. Meredith. Part II: Critique of Teleological Judgement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ______. 1996. Critique of pure reason Unified Edition. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett P ublishing Company, Inc. I have adopted the common practice of reference to the A (1781) and B (1787) ed itions of Kants Critique of pure reason, followed by the page number from the standard edition of Kants works, Kants gesammelte Schriften, issued by the Kniglich Preuische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1902-. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Company and Predecessors. ______. 2002. Metaphysical foundations of natural science. In The Cambridge edition of the works of Immanuel Kant: Theo retical philosophy after 1781. Eds. Henry Allison and Peter Heath. Trans. Gary Hatfield, Michael Friedman, Henry Allison and Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kemp-Pritchard, Ilona. 1981. Peirce on philo sophical hope and logical sentiment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (1):75-90.

PAGE 349

340 Kent, Beverly. 1987. Charles S. Peirce: Logic and the classification of the sciences Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press. Kernan, Fergus. 1965. The Peirce manuscr ipts and Josiah Royce A memoir. Transactions of the Charles Peirce Society 1 (2):90-95. Ketner, Kenneth L. 1998. His glassy essence : An autobiography of Charles Sanders Peirce Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Kihlstrom, John F. 2004. Joseph Jastrow and his duck or is it a rabbit? See http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihstrm/JastrowDuck.htm Kolenda, Konstantin. 1981. Man is a sign: Peirce and Heidegger. In Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fisch and Charles S. Hardwick. 227-231. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. Kuklick, Bruce. 1977. The rise of American philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Kuntz, Paul Grimley. 1994. Doing so mething for the categories. In From time and chance to consciousness: Studies in the metaphysics of Charles Peirce: Papers from the Sesquicentennial Harvard Congre ss. Eds. Edward C. Moore and Richard S. Robin, 177-198. Oxford and Providence, USA: Berg Publishers. Lalor, Brandon. 1997. The classificati on of Peirces interpretants. Semiotica 114 (1/2): 31-40. Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste. 1984. Zoological philosophy Translation of Philosophie zoologique, trans. Hugh Elliott, Chap. 7: 106-127. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lewis, Clarence Irving. 1918. A survey of symbolic logic Berkeley: University of California Press. ______. 1929. Mind and the world-order New York: Charles Scribners Sons. Lieb, Irwin C. 1970. Charles Hartshornes r ecollections of editing the Peirce papers. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 6 (3-4):149-159. Liszka, James Jakb. 1990. Peirces interpretant. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 26 (1):17-62.

PAGE 350

341 Locke, John. 1975. An essay concerning human understanding Ed. Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marty, Robert. 1997. 76 definitions of the sign by C. S. Peirce. Collected and analyzed by Robert Marty. See Arisbe website: http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/ resources/76defs/76defs/htm McCosh, James. 1875. The Scottish philosophy from Hutcheson to Hamilton. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers. Members of the Johns H opkins University. 1983. Studies in logic Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Mill, James. 1829. Analysis of the phenomena of the human mind. 2 vols. London: Baldwin and Cradock. Reprint 2001, Bris tol, England: Thoemmes Press. Mill, J.S. 1889. Examination of Sir William Hamiltons philosophy 6th ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Company. Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A system of logic: Ra tiocinative and inductive London: John W. Parker. ______. 1867. Bains psychology, in John Stuart Mill, Dissertations and discussions: political, philosophi cal and historical Vol. 3. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. Reprinted 1867, chiefly from th e Edinburgh and Westminster Reviews. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. Unabridged facsimile, 2005, Elibron Classics Replica Edition series. Adamant Media Corporation. ______. 1873. Autobiography. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. ______. 2006. Auguste Comte and positivism. In Essays on ethics, religion and society, by John Stuart Mill. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc. First pub lished 1969 as Vol. 10 of The collected works of John Stuart Mill ed. J.M. Robson, University of Toronto Press. Mladenov, Ivan. 2006. Conceptualizing metaphors. London and New York: Routledge. Murphey, Murray G. 1961. The development of Peirces philosophy Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nesher, Don. 1994. The pragmatist theory of human cognition and common-sense. In The Peirce seminar papers ed. Michael Shapiro, 2:103-164. Providence and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

PAGE 351

342 Oehler, Klaus. 1979. Peirces foundation of a semiotic theory of cognition. In Peirce studies: A symposium by members of th e Institute for Studies in Pragmatism No. 1, 67-76. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. Oppenheim, Frank M., ed. 2001. Josiah Royces late writings: A collection of unpublished and scattered works 2 vols. Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press. Ormiston, Gayle L. 1977. Peirces ca tegories: Structure of semiotic. Semiotica 19 (3/4): 209-231. Norton, Charles Eliot. 1877. Philosophical discussions by Chauncey Wright with a biographical sketch of the author Reprint 1971, New York: Burt Franklin. Pape, Helmut. 1990. Charles S. Peirce on objects of thought and representation. Nos 24 (3):375-395. ______. 2002. Pragmatism and the normativity of assertion. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 38 (4):521-542. Parker, Kelly A. 1998. The Continuity of Peirces Thought Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Peirce, Charles S. 1868. Questions concerning certain faculties claimed for man. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2:103-14. ______. 1869. Grounds of validity of the laws of logic. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2:193-208. ______. 1869. Some consequences of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2:140-57. ______. 1877. The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly (12):1-15. ______. 1878. How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly 12:286-302. ______. 1889. Entry for ideal-realism. In The century dictionary online 4:1974. See http://www.global-language.com/CENTURY/ ______. 1891. James psychology. The Nation (July 2):15. ______. 1892. Evolutionary love. The Monist 3 (October):1-22. ______. 1905. Issues of pragmaticism. The Monist 15 (Oct.):481-499.

PAGE 352

343 ______. 1905. What pragmatism is. The Monist 15 (April):161-181. ______. 1906. Prolegomena to an apology for pragmaticism. The Monist 16 (Oct.):492546. ______. 1908. A neglected argument for the reality of God. Hibbert Journal 7:90-112. ______. 1923. Chance, love, and logic: Philosophical essays. Ed. Morris R. Cohen. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc. ______. 1929. Guessing. The Hound & Horn 2 (3):267-285. ______. 1931-1958. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce 8 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vols. 1-6, 1931-1935, eds. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Vols. 7-8, 1958, ed. Ar thur Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cited in text as CP ______. 1975-1979. Contributions to The Nation 3 vols. Eds. Kenneth Laine Ketner and James Edward Cook. Lubbock: Texas Tech Univ ersity Press. Cited in the text as CN. ______. 1992. Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge conferences lectures of 1898. Ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cited in the text as RLT ______. 1992-99. The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. Eds. Nathan Houser, Christian Kloesel, and the Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cited in the text as EP. ______. 1997. Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking: The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism. Ed. Patricia Ann Turrisi. Albany: State University of New York Press. Peirce Edition Project. 1982-. Writings of Charles S. Peir ce: A chronolog ical edition 6 vols. (of projected 30). Bloo mington: Indiana University Press. Cited in the text as W Perry, Ralph Barton. 1935. The thought and character of William James 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Petry, Edward S. Jr. 1992. The origin and development of Peirce s concept of selfcontrol. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28 (4):667-690.

PAGE 353

344 ______. 1992. Peirces concept of self-control. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28 (4):667-690. Plato. 1966. Protagorus Trans. W.K.G. Gutherie. In Plato: The collected dialogues, eds. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. New York: Pantheon Books. Putnam, Hilary. 1987. The many faces of realism. Chicago and La Salle: Open Court Publishing Company. Quine, W.V.O. 1981. The pragmatists place in empiricism. In Pragmatism: Its sources and prospects, eds. Robert J. Mulvaney and Philip M. Zeltner, 21-40. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Ramsey, F.P. 1923. Review. Mind 32 (128):465-478. Ransdell, Ransdell. 1977. Some leading ideas of Peirces semiotic. See Arisbe website http://members.door.net.arisbe/menu/lib rary/acoutcsp/ransdell/ leading.htm Reid, Thomas. 1788. Essays on the active powers of man 3 vols. Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute. Richards, I.A. 1936. The philosophy of rhetoric Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, Robert J. 1987. Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ______. 2003. Darwin on mind, morals and emotions. In The Cambridge companion to Darwin, eds. Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robin, Richard. 1967. Annotated catalogue of th e papers of Charles S. Peirce Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Cited in the text as MS Rorty, Richard. 1961. Pragmatism, categories, and language. Philosophical Review 70 (2):197-223. ______. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature Princeton: Princeton University Press. ______. 1982. Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ______. 1990. Introduction to Pragmatism from Peirce to Davidson by John P. Murphy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

PAGE 354

345 ______. 1999. Philosophy and social hope. London: The Penguin Group. Rosenthal, Sandra. 2004. Peirces pragma tic account of perception: Issues and implications. In The Cambridge companion to Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak, 193-213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Royce, Josiah 1959. The world and the individual 2 vols. New York: Dover Publications. First published 1901, The Macmillan Company. __________ and Fergus Kernan. 1916. Peirce as a philosopher. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 13 (26):701-709. Rylance, Rick. 2000. Victorian psychology and British culture 1850-1880. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Savan, David. 1965. Decision and knowledge in Peirce. In Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 1 (2):31-51. ______. 1977. Questions concerning certain cl assifications claimed for signs. Semiotica 19 (3/4):179-195. ______. 1980. Abduction and semiotics. In The Signifying animal: The grammar of language and experience, eds. Irmengard Rauch Gerald F. Carr, 255. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ______. 1981. Peirces semiotic theory of emotion. In Proceedings of the C.S. Peirce Bicentennial International Congress, eds. Kenneth L. Ketner, Joseph M. Ransdell, Carolyn Eisele, Max H. Fi sch and Charles S. Hardwick, 319-333. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. ______. 1981. The unity of Peirces thought. In Pragmatism and purpose, eds. L.W. Sumner, John G. Slater, and Fred Wilson, 3-14. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ______. 1987-8. An introduction to C.S. Peirce s full system of semeiotic. Monograph Series of the Toronto Semiotic Circle, No. 1. Toronto. ______. 1995. Peirce and idealism. In Peirce and contemporary thought, ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner. New York: Fordham University Press. Sebeok, Thomas. 1981. The play of musement Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

PAGE 355

346 ______. 1995. Indexicality. In Peirce and contemporary thought ed. Kenneth Laine Ketner, 226. New York: Fordham Press. Short, Thomas L. 1966. Review article in Synthese 3 (March):106, 409-430. ______. 1981. Semiosis and intentionality. Transactions of the C harles S. Peirce Society 17 (3):197-223. ______. 1982. Life among the legisigns. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 18 (4):285-310. ______. 1986. David Savans Peirce studies. In Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 22 (2):89-124. ______. 1997. Hypostatic abstraction in self-consciousness. In The rule of reason: The philosophy of C.S. Peirce, eds. Jacqueline Brunning and Paul Forster. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ______. 2004. The development of Peirces theory of signs. In The Cambridge companion to Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ______. 2007. Peirces theory of signs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skagestad, Peter. 1981. The road of inquiry: Charles Peirces pragmatic realism. New York: Columbia University Press. ______. 1999. Peirces inkstand as an ex ternal embodiment of mind. In Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 35 (3):551-561. ______. 2004. Peirces semeiotic model of the mind. In The Cambridge companion to Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak. 246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skrupskelis, Ignas K., and E lizabeth M. Berkeley, eds. 2002. The correspondence of William James Vol. 10 of 12 vols. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia. Smart, J.J.C. 2000. Sensations and brain processes. In Materialism and the mind-body problem 2nd edition., ed. David M. Rosentha l, 53-66. Indian apolis: Hackett Publishing Company. First published 1959, in Philosophical Review 48:141-56. Smith, John E. 1965. Community and reality. In Perspectives on Peirce ed. Richard J. Bernstein, 109. New Haven: Yale University Press.

PAGE 356

347 Spencer, Herbert. 1855. The principles of psychology London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans. ______. 1872. The principles of psychology 2nd enlarged and revise d edition in 2 vols. London: Longmans. Spinks, C.W. 1991. Peirce and triadomania. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Stephens, G. Lynn. 1981. Cognition and emotion in Peirces theory of mental activity. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 17 (2):131-139. Thompson, Manley. 1952. The pragmatic philosophy of C.S. Peirce. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Trammell, Richard L. 1972. Religion, instinct and reason in the thought of Charles S. Peirce. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 8 (1):3-23. Trent, William P., John Erksine, Stuart P. Sherman, and Carl Van Doren, eds. 1907-21. Later national litera ture, Part 2, Later philosophy, Charles S. Peirce. Vol. 17. Cambridge history of English and American literature: An encyclopedia in 18 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and New York: Putnams Sons. See on-line at www.bartleby.com http://www.bartleby.com/227/1018.html. 2000 Turrisi, Patricia Ann. 1997. Commentary. In Charles Sanders Peirce, Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking: The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism, ed. Patricia Ann Turrisi. Albany: State University of New York Press. Ward, A. W. and William P. Trent, et al. 1907-21. The Cambridge history of English and American literature New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1907-21. Online at www.bartleby.com/cambridge/ Weiss, Paul and Arthur Burks. 1945. Peirces sixty-six signs. Journal of Philosophy 42 (14):383-8. Wells, Rulon S. 1964. The true nature of Peirces evolutionism. In Studies in the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce, 2nd series, eds. Edward C. Moore and Richard S. Robin, 304-322. Amherst: The Un iversity of Massachusetts Press. ______. 1965. Peirce as an American. In Perspectives on Peirce, ed. Richard J. Bernstein, 13-41. New Haven and L ondon: Yale University Press. ______. 1971. Distinctively human semiotic. In Essays in semiotics eds. Julia Kristeva, Josette Rey-Debove, and Donna J. Umiker. The Hague: Mouton Press.

PAGE 357

348 ______. 1977. Criteria for semiosis. In A perfusion of signs ed. Thomas Sebeok. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. ______. 1977. Peirces notion of the symbol. Semiotica 19 (3/4):197-208. ______. 1980. Thirdness and linguistics. In The signifying animal Eds. Irmegard Rauch and Gerald F. Carr, 186-200. Bloomingt on: Indiana University Press. Whitehead, Alfred North. 1929. Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. New York: The McMillan Company. Wiener, Philip. 1949. Evolution and the founders of pragmatism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On human nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1960. The blue and brown books New York: Harper & Row. ______. 2001. Philosophical investigations. 3rd ed. Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Wozniak, Robert H. 2002. Bain, Alexander. In Vol. 1 of Dictionary of nineteenth-century British philosophers, eds. W. J. Mander and Alan P.F. Sell. Bristol: Thoemmes Press. ______. 2002. Thomas Brown. In Dictionary of nineteenth century philosophers, eds. W.J. Mander and Alan P.F. Sell, 15457. Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press. Young, Robert M. 1970. Mind, brain and adaptation in the nineteenth c entury: Cerebral localization and its biological context from Gall to Ferrier Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zeman, J. Jay. 1977. The esthetic sign in Peirces semiotic. Semiotica 19 (3/4):241-258. ______. 1977. Peirces theory of signs. In A perfusion of signs, ed. Thomas Sebeok, 2239. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

PAGE 358

349 Appendices

PAGE 359

Appendix A: The 1903 Classi fication of the Sciences Figure 1. 1903 Classification of th e Sciences. Reproduced with permission of the author and publisher from Kelly A. Parker, The Continuity of Peirces Thought (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1998), 37. 350

PAGE 360

Appendix B: Peirces Drawing of the Serpentine Wall Figure 2. Peirces Drawing of the Serpenti ne Wall. Reprinted by permission of the publishers from the COLLECTED PAPE RS OF CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE; VOLUMES 1-6, edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss; VOLUMES 7-8, edited by Arthur Burks, Cambridge, Mass.: The Bel knap Press of Harvard University Press, Copyright 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1958, 1960, 1961 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. 351

PAGE 361

352 Appendix C: Ayims Catalog of the Instincts from the Writings of Charles S. Peirce I. Instincts Related to the Physical Sciences: (1) Theoretical instinct the exam ple Peirce gives is that man instinctively places phenomena and their causes in close spatial proximity ( CP 8.223); (2) The gnostic instinct curiosity ( CP 7.58). (2) is closely related to (1); (3) The power of the human mind to divine the truth, or the method of hypothesis ( MS 652, p.14, CP 1.630, 5.591, 6.491); (4) Instincts which assist the invest igator in giving certain hypotheses priority over others for initial testing ( CP 8.223) (4) is closely related to (3); (5) The belief that there is an elem ent of order in the universe ( CP 6.496) (6) Respect for the physical sciences ( MS 668, pp. 10-11); (7) Most reflection Peirce claims that this instinctive reflection, which consists essentially in reconsider ing ideas and asking whether they appear reasonable, is quite differe nt from the operation of reason ( CP 7.606) (8) The bulk of simple reasonings (CP 2.181) (9) The instinct for obtaining food ( CP 1.118, 7.39) II. Instincts Related to Psychology: (10) Mans natural psychology, or ma ss of opinions about the mind -Peirce notes that this body of beliefs, cont ributing much towards our welfare, is at least partly instinctive, for it is shared by the lower animals ( CP 2.753, 7.421) (11) Sexuality ( MS 668, p.11) (12) Reproductive instincts ( CP 7.379), closely related to (11) and under which (13) and (14) are subsumed; (13) The instinct for producing offspring ( CP 1.118, 7.39) (14) The instinct for rearing offspring ( CP 7.39); (See also Category I, (7) and (8); III. Instincts Related to Basic Human Attributes: (15) Speech, to which Peirce refers as mans instinctive vehicle of thought (MS 654, First Copy, p.4) (16) Instinct for communication ( CP 7.379), closely related to (15), and under which (17) and (18) are subsumed; (17) Instinct for cries and songs ( CP 7.379); (18) Instinct for facial expressions ( CP 7.379); (19) The gust instinct or pleasure principle ( CP 7.58); (20) Walking ( MS 693a, pp. 16-18); (21) Instinct for locomotion and migration ( CP 7.379);

PAGE 362

353 IV. Instincts Related to less Basic Human Attributes: (22) Instinct for games ( CP 7.379) (23) Instincts for medicine e.g., dogs eating grass (CP 7.378); (24) Ferocity ( MS 668, p.11) (25) Instincts for war ( CP 7.378); (26) Instincts for self-concealment ( CP 7.378); (See also Category III, (19)); V. Instincts Related to Religion (27) The belief that there is a God ( CP 6.501) religion itself is a generalization of sen timent or instinct ( CP 1.676); (See also Category I, (5)); VI. Instincts Related to Moral Beliefs: (28) Aversion to incest (CP 5.445, 6.570); (See also Category X, (36), and (37)); VII. Instinct Related to Art and Literature: (29) Poetry, which is a generalizati on of sentiment or instinct ( CP 1.676); (See also Category III, (16), (17) and (18)); VIII. Instincts Related to Indubitable Beliefs: (30) The belief that fire burns ( CP 5.498) IX. Instincts Related to Shelter: (31) Architectural instincts e .g., construction of cobwebs ( CP 7.379); (32) Instincts of working materials e.g., tree falling instinct of beavers, instinct of woodpeckers, and all instinctive mechanical skills ( CP 7.378) (33) Instinct for clothing (CP 7.379); (34) Instinct for adornment and decoration (CP 7.379); (35) Instinct for collecting and hoarding useless things e.g., rats magpies ( CP 7.378); (See also Category IV, (26)); X. Instincts Related to Etiquette (36) Instinct for manners e.g., the convi ction that nudity among adults in public places is socially unacceptable ( CP 2.160) (37) Instinct for personal cleanliness ( CP 7.378); (See also Category IX, (33) and (35)). Figure 3. Ayims Catalog of the Instincts from the Writings of Charles S. Peirce. Reproduced by permission of author from Maryann Ayim, Peirces View of the Roles of Reason and Instinct in Scientific Inquiry (Meerut, India: Anu Prakashan, 1982), 23-25.

PAGE 363

About the Author Robert J. Beeson received a B achelors Degree in Philosophy from the State University of New York College at Bu ffalo, in 1976. He attended The Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., gr aduating with a Master of Divinity Degree in 1979 and a Doctor of Ministry Degree in 1982. He spent 19 years as a pastor and parish priest before being hired to teach philosophy and humanities at Edison State College in Fort Myers, Florida. He entered the Ph.D. program at the University of South Florida in 1999. Mr. Beeson has served as an ad ministrator at Edison State since 2004. He is currently Lee Campus Vice President for A cademic Affairs and Dean of Arts and Sciences. He and his wife, Dr. Heather V. Auld, have five children.