Pierce--Unidealistic Philosophy

Conclusion:

Peirce rejects unidealistic philosophy and holds a fallibilist view: he attempts to prove that the fallibilist view is much better than the unidealistic view.

Every unidealistic philosophy supposes some absolutely inexplicable, unanalyzable ultimate;….To suppose the fact 

absolutely inexplicable, is not to explain it, and hence this supposition is never allowable. (229)

Premises:                                                                                                                                                                   

 1.) What is unidealistic philosophy?        (229)                                                                                                                                                                       

a.) Idealism is the view that everything that there is, is mind, mental or an idea.

b.) This form of idealism comes close to George Berkeley’s form of idealism, “to be is                               to be perceived” or “esse est percipi”.                          

                                                         

2.) For Berkeley, the only way we could know anything about the reality was to experience it through our senses.                                                                                                                             

a.) If something could not be perceived through our senses, we would not be able to say whether it existed or did 

not exist. 

3.) Peirce’s idealism is broader: he holds the view that everything that there is, is cognizable.

                 a.) Everything that is real can be thought and can be an object of cognition.

                 b.) Unreal things/entities cannot be thought and cannot be an object of cognition.

c.) For Peirce, unidealistic philosophy is defined as, there are things/entities in reality that cannot be the object of cognition or of an idea.

i.) There are things/entities in reality that no human being could ever think about, so we could not understand them.

ii.) If things/entities in reality cannot be the object of cognition, they are beyond the comprehension of human mind or mental ability.

d.) Peirce holds that Descartes’ philosophy, in particular, is “unidealistic.”                                                                             

i.) If we adopt Descartes’ philosophy, we cannot explain how the mind and body interact.

4.) Fallibilism is the principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world--knowledge is neither absolute nor certain.

a.) In this sense, Peirce is a fallibilist philosopher.

b.) For Peirce, a hypothesis cannot serve as a hypothesis unless it can be verifiable or tested in future. (247)

                                                                i.) In this sense, Descartes’ philosophy cannot pass muster.

5.) Peirce states that we need “the notion of community” such as the scientific community if we want to do philosophy.

                a.) Under the notion of community, Descartes’ philosophy is doomed to fail.

                                i.) Descartes’ philosophy assumes that knowledge is certain.

ii.) Descartes’ philosophy also assumes that we don’t need a community in order for us to know what knowledge is.

iii.) Descartes’ philosophy cannot explain how the mind and body interact.

6.) There are many facts which Descartes’ philosophy “not only does not explain, but renders absolutely inexplicable, unless to say that ‘God makes them so’ is to be regarded as an explanation.” (228)

a.) Unlike unidealistic philosophy, we cannot use “God makes them so” as an explanation—this is not allowed.

                 b.) A fallibilist view is verifiable, but an unidealistic view is not.

i.) In philosophy, Pierce’s fallibilist view is superior to an unidealistic view.