Peirce y lo incognoscible. Respuesta a Damiani
This article replies to Damiani's objections to a previous paper of mine about the incognizable in Peirce: “The Incognizable and the Bounds of Sense”. I point out that our disagreements are mainly about two points: (1) whether it has any sense to assert that we cannot know if there are incogniz...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
ARFIL y UNL
2018
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar/publicaciones/index.php/index/article/view/7545 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | This article replies to Damiani's objections to a previous paper of mine about the incognizable in Peirce: “The Incognizable and the Bounds of Sense”. I point out that our disagreements are mainly about two points: (1) whether it has any sense to assert that we cannot know if there are incognizables, and (2) whether Peirce can defend his thesis (“The absolutely incognizable is absolutely inconceivable”) without presupposing the idealism as a thesis about the nature of reality. I argue in favor of a positive answer for the first point, and a negative one for the second, and thus I try to justify an agnostic attitude with respect to the incognizable: we cannot know whether there are incognizables. |
|---|