Podcast appearances and mentions of Charles Sanders Peirce

How to find hope in these times? I spoke with political scientist Loren Goldman about the principle of political hope: why we should have hope, how to have hope in dark times, and how political hope differs from naïve optimism, faith in progress, or passive reliance on a hidden logic that will save us in the end. Goldman, who is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of The Principle of Political Hope (Oxford University Press, 2023), where he reveals hope to be an indispensable aspect of much continental and American political thought, especially in the works of Immanuel Kant, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Ernst Bloch, Richard Rorty, and others. Our conversation on Goldman's study of hope ends with three concrete lessons to counter hopelessness, cynicism, and despair. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

How to find hope in these times? I spoke with political scientist Loren Goldman about the principle of political hope: why we should have hope, how to have hope in dark times, and how political hope differs from naïve optimism, faith in progress, or passive reliance on a hidden logic that will save us in the end. Goldman, who is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of The Principle of Political Hope (Oxford University Press, 2023), where he reveals hope to be an indispensable aspect of much continental and American political thought, especially in the works of Immanuel Kant, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Ernst Bloch, Richard Rorty, and others. Our conversation on Goldman's study of hope ends with three concrete lessons to counter hopelessness, cynicism, and despair. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

How to find hope in these times? I spoke with political scientist Loren Goldman about the principle of political hope: why we should have hope, how to have hope in dark times, and how political hope differs from naïve optimism, faith in progress, or passive reliance on a hidden logic that will save us in the end. Goldman, who is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of The Principle of Political Hope (Oxford University Press, 2023), where he reveals hope to be an indispensable aspect of much continental and American political thought, especially in the works of Immanuel Kant, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Ernst Bloch, Richard Rorty, and others. Our conversation on Goldman's study of hope ends with three concrete lessons to counter hopelessness, cynicism, and despair. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to find hope in these times? I spoke with political scientist Loren Goldman about the principle of political hope: why we should have hope, how to have hope in dark times, and how political hope differs from naïve optimism, faith in progress, or passive reliance on a hidden logic that will save us in the end. Goldman, who is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of The Principle of Political Hope (Oxford University Press, 2023), where he reveals hope to be an indispensable aspect of much continental and American political thought, especially in the works of Immanuel Kant, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Ernst Bloch, Richard Rorty, and others. Our conversation on Goldman's study of hope ends with three concrete lessons to counter hopelessness, cynicism, and despair. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How to find hope in these times? I spoke with political scientist Loren Goldman about the principle of political hope: why we should have hope, how to have hope in dark times, and how political hope differs from naïve optimism, faith in progress, or passive reliance on a hidden logic that will save us in the end. Goldman, who is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of The Principle of Political Hope (Oxford University Press, 2023), where he reveals hope to be an indispensable aspect of much continental and American political thought, especially in the works of Immanuel Kant, John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, Ernst Bloch, Richard Rorty, and others. Our conversation on Goldman's study of hope ends with three concrete lessons to counter hopelessness, cynicism, and despair.

Hello Interactors,This week, the European Space Agency launched a satellite to "weigh" Earth's 1.5 trillion trees. It will give scientists deeper insight into forests and their role in the climate — far beyond surface readings. Pretty cool. And it's coming from Europe.Meanwhile, I learned that the U.S. Secretary of Defense — under Trump — had a makeup room installed in the Pentagon to look better on TV. Also pretty cool, I guess. And very American.The contrast was hard to miss. Even with better data, the U.S. shows little appetite for using geographic insight to actually address climate change. Information is growing. Willpower, not so much.So it was oddly clarifying to read a passage Christopher Hobson posted on Imperfect Notes from a book titled America by a French author — a travelogue of softs. Last week I offered new lenses through which to see the world, I figured I'd try this French pair on — to see America, and the world it effects, as he did.PAPER, POWER, AND PROJECTIONI still have a folded paper map of Seattle in the door of my car. It's a remnant of a time when physical maps reflected the reality before us. You unfolded a map and it innocently offered the physical world on a page. The rest was left to you — including knowing how to fold it up again.But even then, not all maps were neutral or necessarily innocent. Sure, they crowned capitals and trimmed borders, but they could also leave things out or would make certain claims. From empire to colony, from mission to market, maps often arrived not to reflect place, but to declare control of it. Still, we trusted it…even if was an illusion.I learned how to interrogate maps in my undergraduate history of cartography class — taught by the legendary cartographer Waldo Tobler. But even with that knowledge, when I was then taught how to make maps, that interrogation was more absent. I confidently believed I was mediating truth. The lines and symbols I used pointed to substance; they signaled a thing. I traced rivers from existing base maps with a pen on vellum and trusted they existed in the world as sure as the ink on the page. I cut out shading for a choropleth map and believed it told a stable story about population, vegetation, or economics. That trust was embodied in representation — the idea that a sign meant something enduring. That we could believe what maps told us.This is the world of semiotics — the study of how signs create meaning. American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce offered a sturdy model: a sign (like a map line) refers to an object (the river), and its meaning emerges in interpretation. Meaning, in this view, is relational — but grounded. A stop sign, a national anthem, a border — they meant something because they pointed beyond themselves, to a world we shared.But there are cracks in this seemingly sturdy model.These cracks pose this question: why do we trust signs in the first place? That trust — in maps, in categories, in data — didn't emerge from neutrality. It was built atop agendas.Take the first U.S. census in 1790. It didn't just count — it defined. Categories like “free white persons,” “all other free persons,” and “slaves” weren't neutral. They were political tools, shaping who mattered and by how much. People became variables. Representation became abstraction.Or Carl Linnaeus, the 18th-century Swedish botanist who built the taxonomies we still use: genus, species, kingdom. His system claimed objectivity but was shaped by distance and empire. Linnaeus never left Sweden. He named what he hadn't seen, classified people he'd never met — sorting humans into racial types based on colonial stereotypes. These weren't observations. They were projections based on stereotypes gathered from travelers, missionaries, and imperial officials.Naming replaced knowing. Life was turned into labels. Biology became filing. And once abstracted, it all became governable, measurable, comparable, and, ultimately, manageable.Maps followed suit.What once lived as a symbolic invitation — a drawing of place — became a system of location. I was studying geography at a time (and place) when Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and GIScience was transforming cartography. Maps weren't just about visual representations; they were spatial databases. Rows, columns, attributes, and calculations took the place of lines and shapes on map. Drawing what we saw turned to abstracting what could then be computed so that it could then be visualized, yes, but also managed.Chris Perkins, writing on the philosophy of mapping, argued that digital cartographies didn't just depict the world — they constituted it. The map was no longer a surface to interpret, but a script to execute. As critical geographers Sam Hind and Alex Gekker argue, the modern “mapping impulse” isn't about understanding space — it's about optimizing behavior through it; in a world of GPS and vehicle automation, the map no longer describes the territory, it becomes it. Laura Roberts, writing on film and geography, showed how maps had fused with cinematic logic — where places aren't shown, but performed. Place and navigation became narrative. New York in cinema isn't a place — it's a performance of ambition, alienation, or energy. Geography as mise-en-scène.In other words, the map's loss of innocence wasn't just technical. It was ontological — a shift in the very nature of what maps are and what kind of reality they claim to represent. Geography itself had entered the domain of simulation — not representing space but staging it. You can simulate traveling anywhere in the world, all staged on Google maps. Last summer my son stepped off the train in Edinburgh, Scotland for the first time in his life but knew exactly where he was. He'd learned it driving on simulated streets in a simulated car on XBox. He walked us straight to our lodging.These shifts in reality over centuries weren't necessarily mistakes. They unfolded, emerged, or evolved through the rational tools of modernity — and for a time, they worked. For many, anyway. Especially for those in power, seeking power, or benefitting from it. They enabled trade, governance, development, and especially warfare. But with every shift came this question: at what cost?FROM SIGNS TO SPECTACLEAs early as the early 1900s, Max Weber warned of a world disenchanted by bureaucracy — a society where rationalization would trap the human spirit in what he called an iron cage. By mid-century, thinkers pushed this further.Michel Foucault revealed how systems of knowledge — from medicine to criminal justice — were entangled with systems of power. To classify was to control. To represent was to discipline. Roland Barthes dissected the semiotics of everyday life — showing how ads, recipes, clothing, even professional wrestling were soaked in signs pretending to be natural.Guy Debord, in the 1967 The Society of the Spectacle, argued that late capitalism had fully replaced lived experience with imagery. “The spectacle,” he wrote, “is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.”Then came Jean Baudrillard — a French sociologist, media theorist, and provocateur — who pushed the critique of representation to its limit. In the 1980s, where others saw distortion, he saw substitution: signs that no longer referred to anything real. Most vividly, in his surreal, gleaming 1986 travelogue America, he described the U.S. not as a place, but as a performance — a projection without depth, still somehow running.Where Foucault showed that knowledge was power, and Debord showed that images replaced life, Baudrillard argued that signs had broken free altogether. A map might once distort or simplify — but it still referred to something real. By the late 20th century, he argued, signs no longer pointed to anything. They pointed only to each other.You didn't just visit Disneyland. You visited the idea of America — manufactured, rehearsed, rendered. You didn't just use money. You used confidence by handing over a credit card — a symbol of wealth that is lighter and moves faster than any gold.In some ways, he was updating a much older insight by another Frenchman. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in the 1830s, he wasn't just studying law or government — he was studying performance. He saw how Americans staged democracy, how rituals of voting and speech created the image of a free society even as inequality and exclusion thrived beneath it. Tocqueville wasn't cynical. He simply understood that America believed in its own image — and that belief gave it a kind of sovereign feedback loop.Baudrillard called this condition simulation — when representation becomes self-contained. When the distinction between real and fake no longer matters because everything is performance. Not deception — orchestration.He mapped four stages of this logic:* Faithful representation – A sign reflects a basic reality. A map mirrors the terrain.* Perversion of reality – The sign begins to distort. Think colonial maps as logos or exclusionary zoning.* Pretending to represent – The sign no longer refers to anything but performs as if it does. Disneyland isn't America — it's the fantasy of America. (ironically, a car-free America)* Pure simulation – The sign has no origin or anchor. It floats. Zillow heatmaps, Uber surge zones — maps that don't reflect the world, but determine how you move through it.We don't follow maps as they were once known anymore. We follow interfaces.And not just in apps. Cities themselves are in various stages of simulation. New York still sells itself as a global center. But in a distributed globalized and digitized economy, there is no center — only the perversion of an old reality. Paris subsidizes quaint storefronts not to nourish citizens, but to preserve the perceived image of Paris. Paris pretending to be Paris. Every city has its own marketing campaign. They don't manage infrastructure — they manage perception. The skyline is a product shot. The streetscape is marketing collateral and neighborhoods are optimized for search.Even money plays this game.The U.S. dollar wasn't always king. That title once belonged to the British pound — backed by empire, gold, and industry. After World War II, the dollar took over, pegged to gold under the Bretton Woods convention — a symbol of American postwar power stability…and perversion. It was forged in an opulent, exclusive, hotel in the mountains of New Hampshire. But designed in the style of Spanish Renaissance Revival, it was pretending to be in Spain. Then in 1971, Nixon snapped the dollar's gold tether. The ‘Nixon Shock' allowed the dollar to float — its value now based not on metal, but on trust. It became less a store of value than a vessel of belief. A belief that is being challenged today in ways that recall the instability and fragmentation of the pre-WWII era.And this dollar lives in servers, not Industrial Age iron vaults. It circulates as code, not coin. It underwrites markets, wars, and global finance through momentum alone. And when the pandemic hit, there was no digging into reserves.The Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet with keystrokes — injecting trillions into the economy through bond purchases, emergency loans, and direct payments. But at the same time, Trump 1.0 showed printing presses rolling, stacks of fresh bills bundled and boxed — a spectacle of liquidity. It was monetary policy as theater. A simulation of control, staged in spreadsheets by the Fed and photo ops by the Executive Branch. Not to reflect value, but to project it. To keep liquidity flowing and to keep the belief intact.This is what Baudrillard meant by simulation. The sign doesn't lie — nor does it tell the truth. It just works — as long as we accept it.MOOD OVER MEANINGReality is getting harder to discern. We believe it to be solid — that it imposes friction. A law has consequences. A price reflects value. A city has limits. These things made sense because they resist us. Because they are real.But maybe that was just the story we told. Maybe it was always more mirage than mirror.Now, the signs don't just point to reality — they also replace it. We live in a world where the image outpaces the institution. Where the copy is smoother than the original. Where AI does the typing. Where meaning doesn't emerge — it arrives prepackaged and pre-viral. It's a kind of seductive deception. It's hyperreality where performance supersedes substance. Presence and posture become authority structured in style.Politics is not immune to this — it's become the main attraction.Trump's first 100 days didn't aim to stabilize or legislate but to signal. Deportation as UFC cage match — staged, brutal, and televised. Tariff wars as a way of branding power — chaos with a catchphrase. Climate retreat cast as perverse theater. Gender redefined and confined by executive memo. Birthright citizenship challenged while sedition pardoned. Even the Gulf of Mexico got renamed. These aren't policies, they're productions.Power isn't passing through law. It's passing through the affect of spectacle and a feed refresh.Baudrillard once wrote that America doesn't govern — it narrates. Trump doesn't manage policy, he manages mood. Like an actor. When America's Secretary of Defense, a former TV personality, has a makeup studio installed inside the Pentagon it's not satire. It's just the simulation, doing what it does best: shining under the lights.But this logic runs deeper than any single figure.Culture no longer unfolds. It reloads. We don't listen to the full album — we lift 10 seconds for TikTok. Music is made for algorithms. Fashion is filtered before it's worn. Selfhood is a brand channel. Identity is something to monetize, signal, or defend — often all at once.The economy floats too. Meme stocks. NFTs. Speculative tokens. These aren't based in value — they're based in velocity. Attention becomes the currency.What matters isn't what's true, but what trends. In hyperreality, reference gives way to rhythm. The point isn't to be accurate. The point is to circulate. We're not being lied to.We're being engaged. And this isn't a bug, it's a feature.Which through a Baudrillard lens is why America — the simulation — persists.He saw it early. Describing strip malls, highways, slogans, themed diners he saw an America that wasn't deep. That was its genius he saw. It was light, fast paced, and projected. Like the movies it so famously exports. It didn't need justification — it just needed repetition.And it's still repeating.Las Vegas is the cathedral of the logic of simulation — a city that no longer bothers pretending. But it's not alone. Every city performs, every nation tries to brand itself. Every policy rollout is scored like a product launch. Reality isn't navigated — it's streamed.And yet since his writing, the mood has shifted. The performance continues, but the music underneath it has changed. The techno-optimism of Baudrillard's ‘80s an ‘90s have curdled. What once felt expansive now feels recursive and worn. It's like a show running long after the audience has gone home. The rager has ended, but Spotify is still loudly streaming through the speakers.“The Kids' Guide to the Internet” (1997), produced by Diamond Entertainment and starring the unnervingly wholesome Jamison family. It captures a moment of pure techno-optimism — when the Internet was new, clean, and family-approved. It's not just a tutorial; it's a time capsule of belief, staged before the dream turned into something else. Before the feed began to feed on us.Trumpism thrives on this terrain. And yet the world is changing around it. Climate shocks, mass displacement, spiraling inequality — the polycrisis has a body count. Countries once anchored to American leadership are squinting hard now, trying to see if there's anything left behind the screen. Adjusting the antenna in hopes of getting a clearer signal. From Latin America to Southeast Asia to Europe, the question grows louder: Can you trust a power that no longer refers to anything outside itself?Maybe Baudrillard and Tocqueville are right — America doesn't point to a deeper truth. It points to itself. Again and again and again. It is the loop. And even now, knowing this, we can't quite stop watching. There's a reason we keep refreshing. Keep scrolling. Keep reacting. The performance persists — not necessarily because we believe in it, but because it's the only script still running.And whether we're horrified or entertained, complicit or exhausted, engaged or ghosted, hired or fired, immigrated or deported, one thing remains strangely true: we keep feeding it. That's the strange power of simulation in an attention economy. It doesn't need conviction. It doesn't need conscience. It just needs attention — enough to keep the momentum alive. The simulation doesn't care if the real breaks down. It just keeps rendering — soft, seamless, and impossible to look away from. Like a dream you didn't choose but can't wake up from.REFERENCESBarthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1957)Baudrillard, J. (1986). America (C. Turner, Trans.). Verso.Debord, G. (1994). The Society of the Spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Zone Books. (Original work published 1967)Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.Hind, S., & Gekker, A. (2019). On autopilot: Towards a flat ontology of vehicular navigation. In C. Lukinbeal et al. (Eds.), Media's Mapping Impulse. Franz Steiner Verlag.Linnaeus, C. (1735). Systema Naturae (1st ed.). Lugduni Batavorum.Perkins, C. (2009). Philosophy and mapping. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier.Raaphorst, K., Duchhart, I., & van der Knaap, W. (2017). The semiotics of landscape design communication. Landscape Research.Roberts, L. (2008). Cinematic cartography: Movies, maps and the consumption of place. In R. Koeck & L. Roberts (Eds.), Cities in Film: Architecture, Urban Space and the Moving Image. University of Liverpool.Tocqueville, A. de. (2003). Democracy in America (G. Lawrence, Trans., H. Mansfield & D. Winthrop, Eds.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1835)Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). Charles Scribner's Sons. (Original work published 1905) This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Hello Interactors,From election lies to climate denial, misinformation isn't just about deception — it's about making truth feel unknowable. Fact-checking can't keep up, and trust in institutions is fading. If reality is up for debate, where does that leave us?I wanted to explore this idea of “post-truth” and ways to move beyond it — not by enforcing truth from the top down, but by engaging in inquiry and open dialogue. I examine how truth doesn't have to be imposed but continually rediscovered — shaped through questioning, testing, and refining what we know. If nothing feels certain, how do we rebuild trust in the process of knowing something is true?THE SLOW SLIDE OF FACTUAL FOUNDATIONSThe term "post-truth" was first popularized in the 1990s but took off in 2016. That's when Oxford Dictionaries named it their Word of the Year. Defined as “circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”, the term reflects a shift in how truth functions in public discourse.Though the concept of truth manipulation is not new, post-truth represents a systemic weakening of shared standards for knowledge-making. Sadly, truth in the eyes of most of the public is no longer determined by factual verification but by ideological alignment and emotional resonance.The erosion of truth infrastructure — once upheld by journalism, education, and government — has destabilized knowledge credibility. Mid-20th-century institutions like The New York Times and the National Science Foundation ensured rigorous verification. But with rising political polarization, digital misinformation, and distrust in authority, these institutions have lost their stabilizing role, leaving truth increasingly contested rather than collectively affirmed.The mid-20th century exposed truth's fragility as propaganda reshaped public perception. Nazi ideology co-opted esoteric myths like the Vril Society, a fictitious occult group inspired by the 1871 novel The Coming Race, which depicted a subterranean master race wielding a powerful life force called "Vril." This myth fed into Nazi racial ideology and SS occult research, prioritizing myth over fact. Later, as German aviation advanced, the Vril myth evolved into UFO conspiracies, claiming secret Nazi technologies stemmed from extraterrestrial contact and Vril energy, fueling rumors of hidden Antarctic bases and breakaway civilizations.Distorted truths have long justified extreme political action, demonstrating how knowledge control sustains authoritarianism. Theodor Adorno and Hannah Arendt, Jewish-German intellectuals who fled the Nazis, later warned that even democracies are vulnerable to propaganda. Adorno (1951) analyzed how mass media manufactures consent, while Arendt (1972) showed how totalitarian regimes rewrite reality to maintain control.Postwar skepticism, civil rights movements, and decolonization fueled academic critiques of traditional, biased historical narratives. By the late 20th century, universities embraced theories questioning the stability of truth, labeled postmodernist, critical, and constructivist.Once considered a pillar of civilization, truth was reframed by French postmodernist philosophers Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard as a construct of power. Foucault argued institutions define truth to reinforce authority, while Baudrillard claimed modern society had replaced reality with media-driven illusions. While these ideas exposed existing power dynamics in academic institutions, they also fueled skepticism about objective truth — paving the way for today's post-truth crisis. Australian philosophy professor, Catherine (Cathy) Legg highlights how intellectual and cultural shifts led universities to question their neutrality, reinforcing postmodern critiques that foreground subjectivity, discourse, and power in shaping truth. Over time, this skepticism extended beyond academia, challenging whether any authority could claim objectivity without reinforcing existing power structures.These efforts to deconstruct dominant narratives unintentionally legitimized radical relativism — the idea that all truths hold equal weight, regardless of evidence or logic. This opened the door for "alternative facts", now weaponized by propaganda. What began as a challenge to authoritarian knowledge structures within academia escaped its origins, eroding shared standards of truth. In the post-truth era, misinformation, ideological mythmaking, and conspiracy theories thrive by rejecting objective verification altogether.Historian Naomi Oreskes describes "merchants of doubt" as corporate and political actors who manufacture uncertainty to obstruct policy and sustain truth relativism. By falsely equating expertise with opinion, they create the illusion of debate, delaying action on climate change, public health, and social inequities while eroding trust in science. In this landscape, any opinion can masquerade as fact, undermining those who dedicate their lives to truth-seeking.PIXELS AND MYTHOLOGY SHAPE THE GEOGRAPHYThe erosion of truth infrastructures has accelerated with digital media, which both globalizes misinformation and reinforces localized silos of belief. This was evident during COVID-19, where false claims — such as vaccine microchips — spread widely but took deeper root in communities with preexisting distrust in institutions. While research confirms that misinformation spreads faster than facts, it's still unclear if algorithmic amplification or deeper socio-political distrust are root causes.This ideological shift is strongest in Eastern Europe and parts of the U.S., where institutional distrust and digital subcultures fuel esoteric nationalism. Post-Soviet propaganda, economic instability, and geopolitical tensions have revived alternative knowledge systems in Russia, Poland, and the Balkans, from Slavic paganism to the return of the Vril myth, now fused with the Save Europe movement — a digital blend of racial mysticism, ethnic nostalgia, and reactionary politics.Above ☝️is a compilation of TikTok videos currently being pushed to my 21 year old son. They fuse ordinary, common, and recognizable pop culture imagery with Vril imagery (like UFO's and stealth bombers) and esoteric racist nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and hyper-masculine mythologies. A similar trend appears in post-industrial and rural America, where economic decline, government distrust, and cultural divides sustain conspiratorial thinking, religious fundamentalism, and hyper-masculine mythologies. The alt-right manosphere mirrors Eastern Europe's Vril revival, with figures like Zyzz and Bronze Age Pervert offering visions of lost strength. Both Vril and Save Europe frame empowerment as a return to ethnic or esoteric power (Vril) or militant resistance to diversity (Save Europe), turning myth into a tool of political radicalization.Climate change denial follows these localized patterns, where scientific consensus clashes with economic and cultural narratives. While misinformation spreads globally, belief adoption varies, shaped by economic hardship, institutional trust, and political identity.In coal regions like Appalachia and Poland, skepticism stems from economic survival, with climate policies seen as elitist attacks on jobs. In rural Australia, extreme weather fuels conspiracies about government overreach rather than shifting attitudes toward climate action. Meanwhile, in coastal Louisiana and the Netherlands, where climate impacts are immediate and undeniable, denial is rarer, though myths persist, often deflecting blame from human causes.Just as Vril revivalism, Save Europe, and the MAGA manosphere thrive on post-industrial uncertainty, climate misinformation can also flourish in economically vulnerable regions. Digital platforms fuel a worldview skewed, where scrolling myths and beliefs are spatially glued — a twisted take on 'think globally, act locally,' where fantasy folklore becomes fervent ideology.FINDING TRUTH WITH FRACTURED FACTS…AND FRIENDSThe post-truth era has reshaped how we think about knowledge. The challenge isn't just misinformation but growing distrust in expertise, institutions, and shared reality. In classrooms and research, traditional ways of proving truth often fail when personal belief outweighs evidence. Scholars and educators now seek new ways to communicate knowledge, moving beyond rigid certainty or radical relativism.Professor Legg has turned to the work of 19th-century American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, whose ideas about truth feel surprisingly relevant today. Peirce didn't see truth as something fixed or final but as a process — something we work toward through questioning, testing, and refining our understanding over time.His approach, known as pragmatism, emphasizes collaborative inquiry, self-correction, and fallibilism — the idea that no belief is ever beyond revision. In a time when facts are constantly challenged, Peirce's philosophy offers not just a theory of truth, but a process for rebuilding trust in knowledge itself.For those unfamiliar with Peirce and American pragmatism, a process that requires collaborating with truth deniers may seem not only unfun, but counterproductive. But research on deradicalization strategies suggests that confrontational debunking (a failed strategy Democrats continue to adhere to) often backfires. Lecturing skeptics only reinforces belief entrenchment.In the early 1700's Britain was embroiled in the War of Spanish Succession. Political factions spread blatant falsehoods through partisan newspapers. It prompted Jonathan Swift, the author of Gulliver's Travels, to observe in The Art of Political Lying (1710) that"Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired."This is likely where we get the more familiar saying: you can't argue someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into. Swift's critique of propaganda and public gullibility foreshadowed modern research on cognitive bias. People rarely abandon deeply held beliefs when confronted with facts.Traditionally, truth is seen as either objectively discoverable (classical empiricism) — like physics — or constructed by discourse and power (postmodernism) — like the Lost Cause myth, which recast the Confederacy as noble rather than pro-slavery. It should be noted that traditional truth also comes about by paying for it. Scientific funding from private sources often dictates which research is legitimized. As Legg observes,“Ironically, such epistemic assurance perhaps rendered educated folk in the modern era overly gullible to the written word as authority, and the resulting ‘fetishisation' of texts in the education sector has arguably led to some of our current problems.”Peirce, however, offered a different path:truth is not a fixed thing, but an eventual process of consensus reached by a community of inquirers.It turns out open-ended dialogue that challenges inconsistencies within a belief system is shown to be a more effective strategy.This process requires time, scrutiny, and open dialogue. None of which are very popular these days! It should be no surprise that in today's fractured knowledge-making landscape of passive acceptance of authority or unchecked personal belief, ideological silos reinforce institutional dogma or blatant misinformation. But Peirce's ‘community of inquiry' model suggests that truth can't be lectured or bought but strengthened through collective reasoning and self-correction.Legg embraces this model because it directly addresses why knowledge crises emerge and how they can be countered. The digital age has resulted in a world where beliefs are reinforced within isolated networks rather than tested against broader inquiry. Trump or Musk can tweet fake news and it spreads to millions around the world instantaneously.During Trump's 2016 campaign, false claims that Pope Francis endorsed him spread faster than legitimate news. Misinformation, revisionist history, and esoteric nationalism thrive in these unchecked spaces.Legg's approach to critical thinking education follows Peirce's philosophy of inquiry. She helps students see knowledge not as fixed truths but as a network of interwoven, evolving understandings — what Peirce called an epistemic cable made up of many small but interconnected fibers. Rather than viewing the flood of online information as overwhelming or deceptive, she encourages students to see it as a resource to be navigated with the right tools and the right intent.To make this practical, she introduces fact-checking strategies used by professionals, teaching students to ask three key questions when evaluating an online source:* Who is behind this information? (Identifying the author's credibility and possible biases)* What is the evidence for their claims? (Assessing whether their argument is supported by verifiable facts)* What do other sources say about these claims? (Cross-referencing to see if the information holds up in a broader context)By practicing these habits, students learn to engage critically with digital content. It strengthens their ability to distinguish reliable knowledge from misinformation rather than simply memorizing facts. It also meets them where they are without judgement of whatever beliefs they may hold at the time of inquiry.If post-truth misinformation reflects a shift in how we construct knowledge, can we ever return to a shared trust in truth — or even a shared reality? As institutional trust erodes, fueled by academic relativism, digital misinformation, and ideological silos, myths like climate denial and Vril revivalism take hold where skepticism runs deep. Digital platforms don't just spread misinformation; they shape belief systems, reinforcing global echo chambers.But is truth lost, or just contested? Peirce saw truth as a process, built through inquiry and self-correction. Legg extends this, arguing that fact-checking alone won't solve post-truth; instead, we need a culture of questioning — where people test their own beliefs rather than being told what's right or wrong.I won't pretend to have the answer. You can tell by my bibliography that I'm a fan of classical empiricism. But I'm also a pragmatic interactionist who believes knowledge is refined through collaborative inquiry. I believe, as Legg does, that to move beyond post-truth isn't about the impossible mission of defeating misinformation — it's about making truth-seeking more compelling than belief. Maybe even fun.What do you think? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

"La croyance et le doute : de Sigmund Freud à Charles Sanders Peirce" aux éditions d'Ithaque. Entretien avec le Dr Marc Delorme, Frédéric de Mont-Marain, Hervé Balondrade. En partenariat avec l'APF.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Pragmatism is a “philosophy” in two senses of the term. It is a general outlook on life and an academic theory of the universe and our place in it. In this program, Aaron Zimmerman, professor and chair of the Philosophy Department at UC, Santa Barbara, discusses the nature of America's pragmatism. The axiom of pragmatism is Alexander Bain's (1865) theory of belief, which was subsequently developed by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. Despite its Scottish origins, pragmatism is distinctively American, as philosophers, like Dewey and Rawls (in his later work), adapted American's founding creed to the changes wrought by the Darwinian revolution in biology, offering a pragmatic rationale for natural rights originally grounded in creationist biology. Series: "GRIT Talks" [Humanities] [Show ID: 40130]

Pragmatism is a “philosophy” in two senses of the term. It is a general outlook on life and an academic theory of the universe and our place in it. In this program, Aaron Zimmerman, professor and chair of the Philosophy Department at UC, Santa Barbara, discusses the nature of America's pragmatism. The axiom of pragmatism is Alexander Bain's (1865) theory of belief, which was subsequently developed by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. Despite its Scottish origins, pragmatism is distinctively American, as philosophers, like Dewey and Rawls (in his later work), adapted American's founding creed to the changes wrought by the Darwinian revolution in biology, offering a pragmatic rationale for natural rights originally grounded in creationist biology. Series: "GRIT Talks" [Humanities] [Show ID: 40130]

Pragmatism is a “philosophy” in two senses of the term. It is a general outlook on life and an academic theory of the universe and our place in it. In this program, Aaron Zimmerman, professor and chair of the Philosophy Department at UC, Santa Barbara, discusses the nature of America's pragmatism. The axiom of pragmatism is Alexander Bain's (1865) theory of belief, which was subsequently developed by Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. Despite its Scottish origins, pragmatism is distinctively American, as philosophers, like Dewey and Rawls (in his later work), adapted American's founding creed to the changes wrought by the Darwinian revolution in biology, offering a pragmatic rationale for natural rights originally grounded in creationist biology. Series: "GRIT Talks" [Humanities] [Show ID: 40130]

Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), filósofo y científico estadounidense, es considerado el padre del pragmatismo. Su obra abarca lógica, semiótica y epistemología. Desarrolló el principio pragmatista, que propone evaluar ideas según sus efectos prácticos. Su enfoque influyó en la filosofía y la teoría del conocimiento en el siglo XX.

Ben Goertzel discusses AGI development, transhumanism, and the potential societal impacts of superintelligent AI. He predicts human-level AGI by 2029 and argues that the transition to superintelligence could happen within a few years after. Goertzel explores the challenges of AI regulation, the limitations of current language models, and the need for neuro-symbolic approaches in AGI research. He also addresses concerns about resource allocation and cultural perspectives on transhumanism. TOC: [00:00:00] AGI Timeline Predictions and Development Speed [00:00:45] Limitations of Language Models in AGI Development [00:02:18] Current State and Trends in AI Research and Development [00:09:02] Emergent Reasoning Capabilities and Limitations of LLMs [00:18:15] Neuro-Symbolic Approaches and the Future of AI Systems [00:20:00] Evolutionary Algorithms and LLMs in Creative Tasks [00:21:25] Symbolic vs. Sub-Symbolic Approaches in AI [00:28:05] Language as Internal Thought and External Communication [00:30:20] AGI Development and Goal-Directed Behavior [00:35:51] Consciousness and AI: Expanding States of Experience [00:48:50] AI Regulation: Challenges and Approaches [00:55:35] Challenges in AI Regulation [00:59:20] AI Alignment and Ethical Considerations [01:09:15] AGI Development Timeline Predictions [01:12:40] OpenCog Hyperon and AGI Progress [01:17:48] Transhumanism and Resource Allocation Debate [01:20:12] Cultural Perspectives on Transhumanism [01:23:54] AGI and Post-Scarcity Society [01:31:35] Challenges and Implications of AGI Development New! PDF Show notes: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/fyetzwgoaf70gpovyfc4x/BenGoertzel.pdf?rlkey=pze5dt9vgf01tf2wip32p5hk5&st=svbcofm3&dl=0 Refs: 00:00:15 Ray Kurzweil's AGI timeline prediction, Ray Kurzweil, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity 00:01:45 Ben Goertzel: SingularityNET founder, Ben Goertzel, https://singularitynet.io/ 00:02:35 AGI Conference series, AGI Conference Organizers, https://agi-conf.org/2024/ 00:03:55 Ben Goertzel's contributions to AGI, Wikipedia contributors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goertzel 00:11:05 Chain-of-Thought prompting, Subbarao Kambhampati, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04776 00:11:35 Algorithmic information content, Pieter Adriaans, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-entropy/ 00:12:10 Turing completeness in neural networks, Various contributors, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/ 00:16:15 AlphaGeometry: AI for geometry problems, Trieu, Li, et al., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06747-5 00:18:25 Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel's collaboration, Shane Legg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Legg 00:20:00 Evolutionary algorithms in music generation, Yanxu Chen, https://arxiv.org/html/2409.03715v1 00:22:00 Peirce's theory of semiotics, Charles Sanders Peirce, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/ 00:28:10 Chomsky's view on language, Noam Chomsky, https://chomsky.info/1983____/ 00:34:05 Greg Egan's 'Diaspora', Greg Egan, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Diaspora-post-apocalyptic-thriller-perfect-MIRROR/dp/0575082097 00:40:35 'The Consciousness Explosion', Ben Goertzel & Gabriel Axel Montes, https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Explosion-Technological-Experiential-Singularity/dp/B0D8C7QYZD 00:41:55 Ray Kurzweil's books on singularity, Ray Kurzweil, https://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Near-Humans-Transcend-Biology/dp/0143037889 00:50:50 California AI regulation bills, California State Senate, https://sd18.senate.ca.gov/news/senate-unanimously-approves-senator-padillas-artificial-intelligence-package 00:56:40 Limitations of Compute Thresholds, Sara Hooker, https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05694 00:56:55 'Taming Silicon Valley', Gary F. Marcus, https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/768076/taming-silicon-valley-by-gary-f-marcus/ 01:09:15 Kurzweil's AGI prediction update, Ray Kurzweil, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jun/29/ray-kurzweil-google-ai-the-singularity-is-nearer

Pragmatism is about being practical. Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition emphasizing the practical consequences and applications of beliefs and theories as central to their meaning and truth. Rooted in the ideas of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey, pragmatism asserts that concepts and propositions should be evaluated based on their practical effects and how well they address problems. This approach rejects the notion of absolute truths, viewing knowledge as provisional and fallible, subject to change through experience and experimentation. The pragmatic maxim, introduced by Peirce, encapsulates this view by stating that the meaning of a concept lies in its observable, practical outcomes.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.

In this month's episode, Çınla, Jennifer, and François speak with Professor Cheryl Misak, University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, Fellow of the Canadian Royal Society, and Guggenheim Fellow, about Frank Ramsey: A Sheer Excess of Powers, her highly regarded biography of the influential mathematician, philosopher, and economist. Other topics include Professor Misak's work on Charles Sanders Peirce and the pragmatist tradition at the University of Cambridge. 

Charles Sanders Peirce, padre del pragmatismo anglosassone, vero genio della filosofia, nella Monografia a lui dedicata! Con CAMBLY impari l'inglese direttamente da smartphone o PC! E fino al 13 giugno puoi avere CAMBLY per 3 mesi con lo sconto del 30%! Con il codice cogito30 lezioni a partire da 6,50€, un'offerta imperdibile: https://cambly.biz/cogito30 Con il codice DAILYCOGITO7 puoi iniziare un percorso su Serenis per prenderti cura del tuo benessere mentale a un prezzo convenzionato. Scopri di più su https://www.serenis.it/influencer/daily-cogito?utm_source=influencer&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=DAILYCOGITO7&utm_content=podcast&utm_term=host+read Iscrizioni riaperte per la Cogito Academy fino al 15 giugno: www.cogitoacademy.it Il mio nuovo libro: https://amzn.to/3OY4Xca ⬇⬇⬇SOTTO TROVI INFORMAZIONI IMPORTANTI⬇⬇ LEGGI LE OPERE DI PEIRCE: https://amzn.to/3yU9N4P Edizione economica: https://amzn.to/4c9vign Ebook: https://amzn.to/4cdw0JG Il libro di Paul Davies: https://amzn.to/4c9guyc Abbonati al canale da 0,99 al mese ➤➤➤ https://bit.ly/memberdufer I prossimi eventi dal vivo ➤➤➤ https://www.dailycogito.com/eventi Scopri la nostra scuola di filosofia ➤➤➤ https://www.cogitoacademy.it/ Impara ad argomentare bene ➤➤➤ https://bit.ly/3Pgepqz Prendi in mano la tua vita grazie a PsicoStoici ➤➤➤ https://bit.ly/45JbmxX Il mio ultimo libro per Feltrinelli ➤➤➤ https://amzn.to/3OY4Xca La newsletter gratuita ➤➤➤ http://eepurl.com/c-LKfz Daily Cogito su Spotify ➤➤➤ http://bit.ly/DailySpoty Tutti i miei libri ➤➤➤ https://www.dailycogito.com/libri/ Il nostro podcast è sostenuto da NordVPN ➤➤➤ https://nordvpn.com/dufer #peirce #filosofia #rickdufer INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/rickdufer INSTAGRAM di Daily Cogito: https://instagram.com/dailycogito TELEGRAM: http://bit.ly/DuFerTelegram FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/duferfb LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/riccardo-dal-ferro/31/845/b14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chi sono io: https://www.dailycogito.com/rick-dufer/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- La musica della sigla è tratta da Epidemic Sound (Ace-High, "Splasher"): https://login.epidemicsound.com/ - la voce della sigla è di ELIO BIFFI Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two quick opening notes on this episode of the Eminent Americans podcast:* According to some post by some guy that I read somewhere once, most podcasts don't make it past 20 episodes. This is episode 21, which I take to mean not only that I'm more stubborn and self-absorbed than all those sub-21-ep scrubs—who have appropriately realized by episode 20 that the world doesn't need another podcaster in it—but that this is surely one of those tipping point situations where if you make it past 20, then the next few hundred are all but assured. So I'll be in your life for a while, or at least until you unsubscribe. * This is the second episode in a row in which I flamboyantly refuse to pay any attention to the text that my guest has selected as our topic of conversation. I should probably reconsider my approach to these State of the Discourse episodes. * The opening clip is from Beanie Siegel's “The Truth.”My guest on this episode of the podcast is James Livingston, professor emeritus of history at Rutgers and the author of, among other books, The World Turned Inside Out: American Thought and Culture at the End of the 20th Century and Origins of the Federal Reserve System: Money, Class, and Corporate Capitalism, 1890-1913. He's currently hard at work on a new book on pragmatism, provisionally titled The Intellectual Earthquake: How Pragmatism Changed the World, 1898-2008.The Mark Edmundson essay we discuss is “Truth Takes a Vacation: Trumpism and the American philosophical tradition.” James's response to it, published on his Substack newsletter Politics, Letters, Persons, is “Pragmatism: An Old Name for a New Kind of Nihilism?”Here's how the AI software Claude describes our conversation. It's basically accurate, but I feel as though it fails to capture the unique essence of our charm and brilliance.This conversation is between Daniel Oppenheimer, the host of the podcast Eminent Americans, and his guest James Livingston, an intellectual historian and professor emeritus at Rutgers University. The main focus of their discussion is pragmatism, the philosophical tradition associated with thinkers like William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Richard Rorty.Livingston argues that pragmatism is still very relevant to American culture and politics. He sees it as a perspective that dismantles traditional dualisms and binary oppositions in favor of more fluid, constructed notions of truth. A key pragmatist idea they discuss is that truths are made by humans rather than existing independently, and that facts cannot be separated from the values and purposes that shape them.They then apply this pragmatist lens to the current polarized political climate in the US. Livingston suggests that the contemporary right-wing, characterized by the "MAGA nation," is motivated by a desire to defend traditional hierarchies and values like male supremacy that are threatened by more egalitarian social changes. He and Oppenheimer debate whether directly confronting this regressive impulse is necessary and desirable.While Oppenheimer is skeptical that heightened politicization and polarization is productive, Livingston argues it is clarifying essential conflicts in American society around issues like racism and sexism. However, they agree that approaching political opponents with empathy and an attempt to understand the experiences and values motivating them is important.Throughout, they reflect on the role of intellectuals and the nature of progress. The conversation showcases the continued relevance of pragmatist ideas for making sense of truth, politics and social change in the United States today. Get full access to Eminent Americans at danieloppenheimer.substack.com/subscribe

In this interview, we talk to Dan Everett about the life and work of the American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce and Everett’s application of Peirce’s ideas to create a Peircean linguistics. Download | Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google…Read more ›

Your subconscious mind controls your beliefs, values, emotions, personality, and essentially drives your reality. We act out what we subconsciously believe we are worthy of, and most of our subconscious beliefs are programmed by other people in childhood. But here's the kicker, we can reprogram them. In today's episode, Karolina is going to demystify the subconscious mind so you can understand the incredible power of it, and how it's going to change your life. We don't have a perfectly programmed subconscious. And it's nobody's fault. You'll hear about different modalities you can use to override the programming you picked up in childhood (like hypnosis, EFT, and NLP), and how to immerse yourself in environments that can change your identity.  There's a lot of science in this episode, shared in an easy to understand format. All of Karolina's successes as a leader, coach, and author were a result of this reprogramming–and this conversation is jam-packed with fascinating insights that will help you create beliefs that will serve you. And if you want to delve deeper into this topic, learn more about the Empowered AF Coach Certification program, which starts March 28th!   IN THIS EPISODE: All about the conscious mind (everything you're paying attention to) vs. the subconscious mind (everything you're not consciously focusing on in the moment) How our subconscious brain deletes, distorts, filters, or generalizes the information we receive How the incredible works of Charles Sanders Peirce, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung helped shape our understanding of the subconscious mind Karolina's favorite techniques to change subconscious programming, including hypnosis, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and the emotional freedom technique (EFT) A behind the scenes peek at Karolina's Empowered AF Coach Certification program which starts March 28th and delves deep into reprogramming the subconscious mind!   LINKS/RESOURCES MENTIONED: Want to learn more about the subconscious mind? Apply now for the Empowered AF Coach Certification, which begins March 28th. Join the coaching program to get certified in Alcohol-Free Life Coaching, Mindset Coaching, Success Coaching, Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) Coaching, and Hypnotherapy. Karolina's book is available in hardcover, Kindle, and as an audiobook. Be sure to get your copy of Euphoric: Ditch Alcohol and Gain a Happier, More Confident You today and leave your review.  Follow @euphoric.af on Instagram. And as always, rate, review, and subscribe so we can continue spreading our message far and wide.

James Evans' life is one resplendent with ideas. His trajectory into research and learning in areas as wide as network science, collective intelligence, computational social science, and even how knowledge is created, is as irreducible as it is exhilarating, and is a beacon in disorienting times marked by seemingly accelerating paces of change. Origins Podcast WebsiteFlourishing Commons NewsletterShow Notes:cultural and knowledge observatories (05:30)Mark Granovetter (09:15)Steve Barley (10:30)Woody Powell (10:30)Chris Summerfield (11:00)Some papers mentioned:Metaknowledge (17:10)Weaving the fabric of science: Dynamic network models of science's unfolding structure (18:30)Abduction (21:30)epistemic space (22:40)Claude Lévi-Strauss (24:20)Clifford Geertz (24:30)"Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations" Obermeyer et al. (30:00)Scarcity Sendhil Mullainathan (35:00)The Knowledge Lab (36:00)"Quantifying the dynamics of failure across science, startups and security" Yin et al. (45:00)Charles Sanders Peirce (51:00)Pirkei Avot (56:00)Alison Gopnik on explore-exploit (01:02:30)Elise Boulding "the 200-year present" (01:03:00)Jo Guldi (01:06:00)Lightning Round (01:06:30):Book: The Enigma of ReasonPassion: physical exploration and spiritual callingHeart sing: 'social science fiction' and Hod LipsonScrewed up: management style at timesJames online:@profjamesevansThe Knowledge Lab'Five-Cut Fridays' five-song music playlist series  James' playlistLogo artwork Cristina GonzalezMusic by swelo

Does Spirit evolve?  How about God?And what exactly does the term panentheism mean?This episode takes a deep dive into process philosophy, process theology, and the evolutionary nature of "becoming."  The pioneer work of Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead, Charles Sanders Peirce, and of course Hegel, all in a way process philosophers, is addressed. Support the show

Anubav Vasudevan is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Chicago, where he works in formal epistemology and the history of logic, though he has published in a number of other areas. This is Anubav's second appearance on the show. In episode #81, he and Robinson discussed mathematics, physics, and the history of logic. In this episode, they talk about the wonderfully bizarre metaphysics of the renowned pragmatist and logician Charles Sanders Peirce.  OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:18 Introduction 04:54 The History of Logic 19:39 Who Was Charles Sanders Peirce? 37:04 The Problem of the Single Trial 48:35 Finding Our Coherent Philosophical Selves 54:32 Charles Peirce's Bizarre Metaphysics Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

STARMAN OR STARCHILD David Bowie explained that the character of Ziggy Stardust was conceived as an alien rock star who arrives on an Earth that is dying due to a lack of natural resources. Around the world older people have lost touch with reality, while children have adopted a hedonistic way of life and no longer want rock music, as there is no electricity to play it. Ziggy is advised in a dream by the infinites ("black-hole jumpers") to write about the coming of a starman who will save the earth. Ziggy's tale of the starman is the first news of hope that the people have heard, so they latch onto it immediately. Ziggy soon gathers a large following and is worshipped as a prophet. According to Bowie, "He takes himself up to incredible spiritual heights and is kept alive by his disciples." The infinites eventually arrive, and tear Ziggy apart onstage. And just as we have borne the image [of the man] of Ziggy stardust, so shall we and so let us also bear the image [of the Man] of heaven. But I tell you this, brethren, flesh and blood cannot [become partakers of eternal salvation and] inherit or share in the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable (that which is decaying) inherit or share in the imperishable (the immortal). Take notice! I tell you a mystery (a secret truth, an event decreed by the hidden purpose or counsel of God). We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed (transformed) DAY 18 PERMANENT SUPERNAL INDEXICALITY “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord [the only Lord].” Deuteronomy‬ ‭6‬:‭4‬ ‭ “Whereas this One [Christ], after He had offered a single sacrifice for our sins [that shall avail] for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,” Hebrews‬ ‭10‬:‭12‬ ‭ “God's own self-manifestation, constitutes a perpetual epiphany, a permanent entempling of the divine Presence.” Kline Meredith G. 2001. Glory in Our Midst : A Biblical-Theological Reading of Zechariah's Night Visions. Eugene Ore: Wipf and Stock, 225. SUPERNAL Relating to the sky or the heavens; celestial. of exceptional quality or extent. INDEXICALITY The concept of indexicality has been greatly elaborated in the literature of linguistic anthropology since its introduction by Silverstein, but Silverstein himself adopted the term from the theory of sign phenomena, or semiotics, of Charles Sanders Peirce. As an implication of his general metaphysical theory of the three universal categories, Peirce proposed a model of the sign as a triadic relationship: a sign is "something which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity."[7] Thus, more technically, a sign consists of A sign-vehicle or representamen, the perceptible phenomenon which does the representing, whether audibly, visibly or in some other sensory modality;[8]: "Representamen"  An object, the entity of whatever kind, with whatever modal status (experienceable, potential, imaginary, law-like, etc.), which is represented by the sign;[8]: "Object"  and An interpretant, the "idea in the mind" of the perceiving individual, which interprets the sign-vehicle as representing the object.[8]: "Interpretant"  Peirce further proposed to classify sign phenomena along three different dimensions by means of three trichotomies, the second of which classifies signs into three categories according to the nature of the relationship between the sign-vehicle and the object it represents. As captioned by Silverstein, these are: Going Boldly Where The Last Man has Gone Before! Decrease time over target:  PayPal or Venmo @clastronaut Cash App $clastronaut

Para este episodio número dos, Tania Aedo conversa con el escritor, artista multidisciplinario y filósofo mexicano Manuel Delanda a partir de su último libro Materialist Phenomenology: A Philosophy of Perception. El libro marca un giro en el trabajo de Delanda, antes enfocado en las grandes entidades como las guerras, las grandes poblaciones y la economía de gran escala, ahora hacía la subjetividad humana. En la conversación abordan temas como los proto-yos, la evolución y la percepción visual y la obra de filósofos como Charles Sanders Peirce, Gilles Deleuze y el psicólogo James Gibson.

In Episode 8 of John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis series, he continues his exploration of the dialogical self and the various theories and practices surrounding it. He dives into the works of philosophers and psychologists, such as Norbert Wiley, George Herbert Mead, Charles Sanders Peirce, Agnes Callard, Hubert Hermans, and many others, who have made significant contributions to understanding the "I" positions and the dialogical self. This episode also covers the concept of "Parts Work" in relation to the self, as well as the integration of intuition and rationality, and the importance of non-propositional knowing. Vervaeke touches on various theories and practices, such as internal family systems therapy, focusing, and ally work, which are aimed at healing and integrating the different aspects of the self. Throughout the episode, Vervaeke emphasizes the value of understanding the self and its various facets to lead a more meaningful life. He shares insights and practices to help individuals navigate their inner experiences and cultivate a richer understanding of themselves. Please join our patreon to support our work! https://www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke -- You are invited to join me live, online, at the next Circling & Dialogos Workshop where we discuss & practice the tools involved in both Philosophical Fellowship & Dialectic into Dialogos. You can find more information, and register, here:   https://circlinginstitute.com/circlin... --- After Socrates is a series about how to create the theory, the practice, and the ecology of practices such that we can live and grow and develop through a Socratic way of life. The core argument is; the combination of the theoretical framework and the pedagogical program of practices can properly conduct us into the Socratic way of life. We believe that the Socratic way of life is what is most needed today because it is the one that can most help us cultivate wisdom in a way that is simultaneously respectful to spiritual tradition and to current scientific work.

This episode features Dr. Jay Schulkin, a noted author and neuroscientist with training in philosophy. We explore the connections between the development of neuroscience as a discipline and the rise of the classical pragmatist philosophers, including John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, as well as the proto-pragmatist jurist Oliver Wendell Jones, Jr. What are the connections between the start of experimental psychology in the U.S. and the rise of classical pragmatism? Dr. Schulkin discusses Holmes' interest in behavioral sciences, statistical inference, rigorous experimental design, and the prediction of human behavior, including the actions of judges. We explore how one might draw the line between neuroscience and other disciplines. Finally we explore the perennial question: What are the alternatives to determinism as an orientation for neuroscience?

Sean Illing talks with Cornel West about the American philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. They talk about what makes pragmatism so distinctly American, how pragmatists understand the connection between knowledge and action, and how the pragmatist mindset can invigorate our understanding of democratic life and communal action today. Cornel West also talks about the ways in which pragmatism has influenced his work and life, alongside the blues, Chekhov, and his Christian faith. This was an episode of The Philosophers, a series from Vox Conversations, originally released in May. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), Interviews writer, Vox Guest: Cornel West (@CornelWest), author; Dietrich Bonhoeffer professor of philosophy & Christian practice, Union Theological Seminary References to works by American pragmatists:  Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882): "Self-Reliance" (1841) William James (1842–1910): Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (1907); The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902); "Is Life Worth Living?" (1895) Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914): "The Fixation of Belief" (1877) John Dewey (1859–1952): The Quest for Certainty (1929); "Emerson—The Philosopher of Democracy" (1903); The Public and Its Problems (1927) Richard Rorty (1931–2007): "Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism" (1979); "Solidarity or Objectivity?" (1989) Other references:  Cornel West Teaches Philosophy (MasterClass) The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism by Cornel West (Univ. of Wisconsin Press; 1989) The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1925) Plato, Republic (refs. in particular to Book 1 and Book 8) The Phantom Public by Walter Lippmann (1925) Leopardi: Selected Poems of Giacomo Leopardi (1798–1837), tr. by Eamon Grennan (Princeton; 1997) "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus (1942; tr. 1955) Democracy & Tradition by Jeffrey Stout (Princeton; 2003) Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of The Gray Area by subscribing in your favorite podcast app. Support The Gray Area by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Engineer: Patrick Boyd Senior Producer: Katelyn Bogucki Editorial Director, Vox Talk: A.M. Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The full text of this podcast can be found in the transcript of this edition or at the following link:https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2022/09/a-gentle-plea-for-buddhisto-christian.htmlPlease feel to post any comments you have about this episode there.Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass)

This is a live conversation I recorded on Twitter Spaces on 11 January 2022, between me (Bryan Kam), Isabela Granic, Athenian Stranger, and others. We discuss abstraction and perfection, including Spinoza's Ethics, Charles Sanders Peirce, the medieval scholastics, as well as Ancient Chinese, and Greek philosophy. I edited out the very beginning, when we were getting set up, but otherwise it includes the entire conversation. If you would like to schedule a conversation with me like this, please click here. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bkam/message

Sean Illing talks with Cornel West about the American philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. They talk about what makes pragmatism so distinctly American, how pragmatists understand the connection between knowledge and action, and how the pragmatist mindset can invigorate our understanding of democratic life and communal action today. Cornel West also talks about the ways in which pragmatism has influenced his work and life, alongside the blues, Chekhov, and his Christian faith. This is the third episode of The Philosophers, a new monthly series from Vox Conversations. Each episode will focus on a philosophical figure or school of thought from the past, and discuss how their ideas can help us make sense of our modern world and lives today. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), Interviews writer, Vox Guest: Cornel West (@CornelWest), author; Dietrich Bonhoeffer professor of philosophy & Christian practice, Union Theological Seminary References to works by American pragmatists:  Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882): "Self-Reliance" (1841) William James (1842–1910): Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (1907); The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902); "Is Life Worth Living?" (1895) Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914): "The Fixation of Belief" (1877) John Dewey (1859–1952): The Quest for Certainty (1929); "Emerson—The Philosopher of Democracy" (1903); The Public and Its Problems (1927) Richard Rorty (1931–2007): "Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism" (1979); "Solidarity or Objectivity?" (1989) Other references:  Cornel West Teaches Philosophy (MasterClass) The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism by Cornel West (Univ. of Wisconsin Press; 1989) The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald (1925) Plato, Republic (refs. in particular to Book 1 and Book 8) The Phantom Public by Walter Lippmann (1925) Leopardi: Selected Poems of Giacomo Leopardi (1798–1837), tr. by Eamon Grennan (Princeton; 1997) "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus (1942; tr. 1955) Democracy & Tradition by Jeffrey Stout (Princeton; 2003) Enjoyed this episode? Rate Vox Conversations ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of Vox Conversations by subscribing in your favorite podcast app. Support Vox Conversations by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Engineer: Patrick Boyd Deputy Editorial Director, Vox Talk: Amber Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

William James (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910) was an American philosopher and psychologist, and the first educator to offer a psychology course in the United States.[5] James is considered to be a leading thinker of the late 19th century, one of the most influential philosophers of the United States, and the "Father of American psychology."[6][7][8] Along with Charles Sanders Peirce, James established the philosophical school known as pragmatism, and is also cited as one of the founders of functional psychology. A Review of General Psychology analysis, published in 2002, ranked James as the 14th most eminent psychologist of the 20th century "It has sometimes crossed my mind that James wanted to be a poet and an artist, and that there lay in him, beneath the ocean of metaphysics, a lost Atlantis of fine arts: and that he really hated philosophy and all its works, and pursued them only as Hercules might spin or as a prince in a fairy tale sorts seeds for an evil dragon, or as anyone might patiently do some careful work for which he had no aptitude." John J. Chapman, a friend of William James

Hedge fund head Ray Dalio, in his book "Principles" states, "To be 'good,' something must operate consistently with the laws of reality and contribute to the evolution of the whole; that is what is most rewarded. Evolution is the single greatest force in the universe; it is the only thing that is permanent and it drives everything." Dalio is not a trained philosopher but has plenty of street smarts.  And street smarts should never be discounted.  American pragmatic philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce put evolution at the core of his philosphy. Regarding Peirce and Hegel, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states, "These thinkers, of course, all have a single theme in common: evolution.  . . both Hegel and Peirce make the whole evolutionary interpretation of the evolving phaneron (world of appearances) to be a process that is said to be logical, the 'action' of logic itself.” Peirce had access to Darwinian evolution which Hegel did not. And importantly, Peirce incorporates Darwinism in his theory of evolution and yet goes beyond. Hence his philosophy is an update of sorts of Hegelianism, particularly regarding Nature. This episode explores.  

Glossary for DiQ ep 7 series 3 – Jan Werner MüllerWho was Alexis de Tocqueville?(pg. 1 tocquevillian question of the transcript or 00:1:08)French sociologist and political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) traveled to the United States in 1831 to study its prisons and returned with a wealth of broader observations that he codified in “Democracy in America” (1835), one of the most influential books of the 19th century. With its trenchant observations on equality and individualism, Tocqueville's work remains a valuable explanation of America to Europeans and of Americans to themselves. What is nativism?(pg. 1 of the transcript or 00:4:42)Nativism represents the political idea that people who were born in a country are more important than immigrants. Source. Who is Marine Le Pen?(pg. 3 of the transcript or 00:10:03)Marine Le Pen, French politician who succeeded her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, as leader of the National Front (later National Rally) party in 2011. She was that party's candidate in the 2017 French presidential election. In 1998 she joined the administrative apparatus of the National Front, which had been founded by her father in 1972 and was the main right-wing opposition to France's mainstream conservative parties. She served as the director of the party's legal affairs until 2003, when she became the National Front's vice president. The following year she made a successful run for a seat in the European Parliament where she joined her father in that body's nonaligned bloc. As Le Pen emerged from her father's shadow to become a national figure in her own right, she distanced herself from some of his and the party's more extreme views. While she embraced the National Front's established anti-immigration stance, she rebranded the party's traditional Euroscepticism as French nationalism and she was a vocal critic of the anti- Semitism that has marginalized the party in the past.In June 2018 Le Pen announced that the National Front would change its name to Rassemblement National (National Rally), in an apparent effort to distance the party from its overtly neofascist and anti-Semitic past. The National Rally topped the field in EU parliamentary elections in 2019, and opinion polling indicated that they were likely to carry that momentum into French regional elections in 2021. The party performed far below expectations in the first round of balloting, however, in an election that was characterized by extremely low voter turnout. Source What was the Fairness Doctrine?(Page 6 of the transcript or 00:25:14)U.S. communications policy (1949–87) formulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Required licensed radio and television broadcasters to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues of interest to their communities, including by granting equal airtime to opposing candidates for public office. The fairness doctrine was never without its opponents, however, many of whom perceived the equal airtime requirement as an infringement of the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.In 1987 the FCC formally repealed the fairness doctrine but maintained both the editorial and personal-attack provisions, which remained in effect until 2000. In addition, until they were finally repealed by the commission in 2011, more than 80 media rules maintained language that implemented the doctrine. Source Who was John Dewey?(page 7 of the transcript or 00:28:02)John Dewey (1859–1952) was one of American pragmatism's early founders, along with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, and arguably the most prominent American intellectual for the first half of the twentieth century. Dewey's educational theories and experiments had a global reach, his psychological theories had a sizeable influence in that growing science, and his writings about democratic theory and practice deeply influenced debates in academic and practical quarters for decades. Dewey also developed extensive and often systematic views in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, aesthetics, and philosophy of religion. In addition to academic life, Dewey comfortably wore the mantle of public intellectual, infusing public issues with lessons found through philosophy. He spoke on topics of broad moral significance, such as human freedom, economic alienation, race relations, women's suffrage, war and peace, human freedom, and educational goals and methods. Typically, discoveries made via public inquiries were integrated back into his academic theories, and aided their revision. This practice-theory-practice rhythm powered every area of Dewey's intellectual enterprise, and perhaps explains why his philosophical theories are still discussed, criticized, adapted, and deployed in many academic and practical arenas.  Source Who is Elizabeth Anderson?(page 7 of the transcript or 00:30:40)American Philosopher specializing in moral, social and political philosophy, feminist theory, social epistemology, and the philosophy of economics and the social sciences. She is particularly interested in exploring the interactions of social science with moral and political theory, how we learn to improve our value judgments, the epistemic functions of emotions and democratic deliberation, and issues of race, gender, and equality. Source

Aujourd'hui nous allons voir la partie PENDANT ou comment vendre facilement de manière éthique et responsable?  Si vous venez de nous rejoindre et que vous souhaitez en savoir plus, je vous invite à vous abonner à mon podcast et à vous télécharger gratuitement les chapitres des épisodes 1 et 2 où je vous parle de mon introduction à ma méthode et le chapitre 2 où c'est la partie AVANT.  Aujourd'hui on va voir la partie PENDANT.  Les 3 parties du PENDANT: Comme je vous l'ai expliqué dans mon introduction, dans la partie PENDANT nous allons retrouver les trois parties, les trois sous-parties si vous préférez, qui sont: premièrement la communication pragmatique, deuxièmement l'empathie et la volonté d'aider et troisièmement, la manière de faire une vente éthique.  1/communication pragmatique Premièrement, la communication pragmatique Pour solutionner l'erreur numéro 3 qui est : Ne pas savoir comment aborder le client? nous allons voir La communication pragmatique. Tout d'abord , une brève définition du mot pragmatisme. Le pragmatisme est une école philosophique américaine. Selon le fondateur du pragmatisme, Charles Sanders Peirce, le sens d'une expression réside dans ses conséquences pratiques. Qu'est ce que ça veut dire? Ça ne veut pas dire: Tous les moyens sont bons! Ça veut dire que si ça marche, alors la méthode est bonne. Poussé à l'extrême par William James, un autre des pères fondateurs du pragmatisme: "Faites comme si!" Faites comme si ça marchait déjà. Changez votre réalité. Arrêtez de croire que vous ne pouvez pas. Appliquez des méthodes qui marchent, des méthodes pragmatiques. Ayez une communication pragmatique, une communication qui fonctionne bien dans les deux sens. Ayez une méthode qui fonctionne. Nous allons voir trois conseils pour développer une communication pragmatique. 1- Le “pitch elevator” ou le discours de l'ascenseur. Premier conseil, rédigez et répétez votre "Elevator pitch" ou autrement dit : le discours de l'ascenseur. Un elevator pitch, ou un argumentaire éclair, est un exercice de communication orale qui consiste à se présenter et mettre en valeur son projet face à un partenaire ou investisseur potentiel, situé à un niveau hiérarchique plus élevé que soi et dont le temps est compté. D'après l'ouvrage de Daniel Pink, ”Convainquez qui vous voudrez” traduit de l'anglais par Michel Le Séac'h sur le site internet https://business.lesechos.fr , Elisha Otis a inventé l'elevator pitch.  À l'automne 1853, un artisan américain du nom de Elisha Otis qui avait imaginé une solution à l'un des problèmes de mécanique les plus ardus de l'époque cherchait un endroit prestigieux pour en faire la démonstration. Il y bâtit, glissant le long d'une tige, une plate-forme d'ascenseur ouverte capable de monter et descendre. Un après-midi, il fit réunir des congressistes pour une démonstration. Il grimpa sur la plate-forme et demanda à un assistant de la hisser à sa hauteur maximale. Là, debout et toisant le public au sol, Otis prit une hache et trancha la corde qui retenait l'ascenseur dans les airs. Le public fit « Oh ! ». La plate-forme tomba. Mais en quelques secondes, le frein de sécurité se déclencha et stoppa sa chute. Bien vivant et toujours debout, Otis se pencha vers la foule en émoi et dit : « Tout va bien, gentlemen, tout va bien. » Ce moment a réuni deux premières. Ce fut la première démonstration d'un ascenseur assez sûr pour transporter des humains. Otis, vous l'avez compris, fonda ensuite la société d'ascenseurs Otis Elevator Company. Et, ce qui importe plus pour notre sujet, ce fut un moyen simple, succinct et efficace de présenter un message complexe en vue de faire bouger autrui – le premier « discours de l'ascenseur » du monde ! Voici l'histoire du premier discours de l'ascenseur.  Et vous? Que diriez-vous, le temps d'un trajet en ascenseur, à la personne qui peut vous passer un bon de commande, à la personne qui peut changer votre vie? Que diriez-vous en 15 secondes à votre client idéal? Y avez-vous déjà pensé? Non? Et bien il va falloir y penser avant d'envisager de voir un prospect ou un client ... Arrêtez de déballer tous les produits et services de votre catalogue, Ne gâchez pas des opportunités à vous lancer sans prendre le temps de préparer ces 15 premières secondes où vous devez capter toute l'attention de votre client. Comme vous avez pu le comprendre, cela à un rapport direct avec les outils pour planifier une stratégie gagnante que nous avons vu hier, dans l'épisode précédent. Préparez un pitch, un bref discours pour expliquer à vos clients ce que vous faites d'une manière courte, claire, précise et impactante.   Ce que vous faites d'une manière courte, claire, précise et impactante.  Alors, comment est-ce qu'on peut impacter avec un pitch et surtout faire la différence?  En règle générale, les vendeurs débutants, ou ceux qui échouent, sont les vendeurs qui arrivent devant leurs clients, qui leur déballent tous leurs produits, tous leurs services. Qui leur expliquent tout, qui montrent qu'ils ont bien appris leurs leurs produits mais qui vont tout leur expliquer.  Et vos clients, ils n'ont pas le temps. Vos clients, ils ont un travail. Vos clients, ils sont occupés à faire autre chose et vous leur prenez du temps. Donc, ce temps il faut le respecter.  Plus vous serez clair, précis et direct dans ce que vous voulez dire, plus vous aurez la possibilité d'impacter votre client. Alors attention! Ça ne veut pas non plus dire qu'à votre client il faut lui dire “signe ici!”. C'est pas ce que je veux dire, d'accord? Ce que je veux dire c'est qu'il faut qu'il comprenne rapidement comment est-ce que vous pouvez lui solutionner un de ces problèmes? Ou comment est-ce que vous pouvez satisfaire un de ses désirs? Il y a deux choses qui nous poussent au changement. Il y a deux choses qui nous poussent à changer d'une marque à une autre. Il y a deux choses qui nous poussent à changer vers un autre produit. Les deux choses qui nous poussent au changement sont la douleur et le plaisir.  Ce sont les 2 choses qui nous poussent à changer la douleur et le plaisir. J'insiste là-dessus. C'est très important. Si vous arrivez à résoudre les problèmes de vos clients, si vous arrivez à résoudre les problèmes de votre client et non pas les vôtres, d'accord, ceux de votre client; à ce moment là vous allez vous rendre compte que si vous arrivez à faire un pitch court et précis, directement votre client va être attentif. Il va vous en demander plus. Il va vouloir savoir comment est-ce que vous pouvez me résoudre son problème? Et il va vous écouter.  Prenons un exemple. Si moi je devais me retrouver, je vais prendre mon exemple, à moi, d'accord, c'est le premier qui me vient. C'est celui qui pour moi est très clair et c'est ma méthode :) J'inclus mon pitch, donc c'est normal, ok. C'est pour que vous compreniez, pour que ce soit très clair pour tout le monde.  Mon exemple à moi c'est: “j'aide les personnes qui débutent ou qui échouent dans la vente, à devenir des experts en créant un flux constant de nouveaux clients de manière éthique et responsable. “ Si on décompose tout ça, c'est: Qui est-ce que j'aide? Ça normalement vous l'avez déjà défini dans la partie AVANT. Quand on parlait de la planification. Quand je vous parlais de savoir quels sont les clients qui vont vous résoudre le 80 % de votre chiffre d'affaires et quel est le 80 % des problèmes de vos clients? D'accord? Donc, ça normalement vous devriez déjà le savoir.  Un pitch ça se compose de trois parties. Vous avez la première partie c'est qui est-ce que vous aidé, en quoi vous pouvez les aider et comment vous allez le faire. Ou dit d'une autre manière, leurs problèmes et comment vous allez les résoudre.Pas compliqué jusqu'ici. QUI, QUOI, COMMENT. Je vais prendre d'autres exemples de ma carrière avec d'autres secteurs d'activité pour que vous compreniez bien. Par exemple, quand j'étais dans la chimie du bâtiment, j'aidais les entreprises du secteur du bâtiment à obtenir des produits chimiques pour la construction.   Un autre exemple, quand j'étais dans une agence de marketing online pour les petites et moyennes entreprises, pour les PME, j'aidais les entreprises à gagner en visibilité sur leurs marchés respectifs, en les incluant dans un annuaire d'entreprise et dans les moteurs de recherche sur Internet comme Google.  Autre exemple, quand j'étais dans le secteur hardware informatique, j'aidais les entreprises à diminuer leur coût d'impression en obtenant des fongibles et des consomptibles informatiques compatibles.  Ou autre, quand j'étais dans l'automotion, j'aidais les particuliers à réviser, à réparer et à entretenir leurs véhicules en leur offrant le meilleur service commercial possible.  C'est pas pour parler de moi, parce qu'au bout du compte moi j' importe peu. Ce qui importe c'est vous et votre croissance. Mais c'est simplement pour vous donner des exemples de comment vous pouvez vous positionner en disant que vous aidez quelqu'un.  Par contre, il faut le dire et il faut le faire. Il faut vraiment que ce soit aidé. Il ne faut pas que ce soit un prétexte pour rentrer et ensuite ne pas être honnête avec votre client.  Alors votre pitch, c'est vous-même qui devez le créer. Il n'y a personne qui peut le faire pour vous. D'accord? Donc c'est très important, en fait d'avoir ça très clair au moment d'aborder votre client parce que ça vous permet, ça vous donne de la clarté, ça vous donne de la visibilité, immédiatement ça vous différencie du reste. Donc c'est très important.  Essayez, essayez. Je vous demande simplement d'essayer. Vous allez voir, c'est magique. Après si vous souhaitez que moi je vous le révise, que je vous dise si effectivement c'est un bon pitch ou pas. Pareil, vous pouvez me contacter directement sur ma page web https://www.antoinehernandez.com . Ou sinon directement sur Instagram par message privé. Il n'y a pas de problème. Je vous répondrai je vous dirais si ça me semble bien. Et si ça me semble bien, je vous le ferai savoir immédiatement.  Une fois qu'on a parlé, il s'agit d'écouter. Deuxième astuce, vous voyez, comme je vous ai dit hier, c'est vraiment tout simple, il n'y a aucune complication dans la vente. D'accord? C'est simplement du bon sens.  2- Écoutez! La deuxième chose, une fois que vous avez parlé, vous écoutez. D'accord? Alors écouter c'est pas entendre, c'est vraiment écouter la personne de manière active. C'est d'écouter sans l'interrompre et d'essayer de vous concentrer au maximum sur toutes les informations qu'il va vous donner.  Vous allez pas pouvoir tout retenir mais il va falloir simplement retenir les informations essentielles. Celles où vous allez devoir approfondir pour pouvoir découvrir les besoins de votre client. Les besoins de votre client.  Alors tout simplement écoutez. Bien faire attention à tout ce qu'il vous dit. Vous allez voir, au début ça peut paraître un peu dur mais au bout d'un moment, quand vous connaissez bien vos produits, quand vous avez bien répété, quand vous savez bien écouté, vous allez automatiquement faire des mindmaps, des liaisons mentales avec les produits ou les services qui peuvent résoudre ses problèmes ou satisfaire ses besoins.  Écouter sans interrompre c'est très important et c'est le deuxième type de la communication pragmatique.  3- Découvrir et clarifier! Le troisième tips, c'est justement découvrir et clarifier. Découvrir les besoins de votre client et clarifier ça veut dire que vous allez devoir lui poser des questions pour essayer de déterminer au mieux, de la même manière que vous poseriez des questions à un ami pour en savoir plus sur ses problèmes pour savoir comment les résoudre. Tout simplement. Ou en savoir plus sur ses désirs pour savoir comment les satisfaire.  Donc simplement, découvrir, c'est poser des questions. Alors il y a plein de techniques pour ça mais on ne va pas parler de ça. On va parler de choses simples et concrètes. Découvrir les besoins de votre client et clarifier.  J'insiste sur le mot clarifier. Dans la vente, on voit beaucoup de méthodes qui vous parlent d'objections. Moi au début, j'en ai eu plein des objections :) et j'ai transformé ce mot objection. Je l'ai transformé en clarification.  Une objection c'est pas qu'il vous dise non. C'est simplement que votre client souhaite clarifier quelque chose. C'est pour cette raison que “objection”, aujourd'hui ça fait plus partie de mon vocabulaire. Il n'y a qu'à clarifier. Il ne suffit que de clarifier. Remplacez objection par clarification et vous allez voir, tout va être plus simple.  Quand vous clarifiez, votre client se rend compte que vous prenez soin de lui, que vous faites attention. Donc, quand vous allez clarifier avec lui, non seulement vous allez répondre à ce qu'on pourrait appeler une objection mais en plus vous allez laisser très clair comme quoi vous avez bien entendu son problème.  Attention, ça ne veut pas dire non plus éviter les objections. Je ne vous ai pas dit d'éviter les objections. Je vous ai simplement dit de transformer le mot objection par clarification. Ce sera moins éprouvant quand vous débutez dans la vente, de répondre à des clarifications qu'à des objections.  Voici la base des principes simples, on va dire, de la communication pragmatique. Et ça, ça  vous aidera, en fait, à bien écouter votre client et à clarifier.  On va passer à l'empathie et la volonté d‘aider. 2/ L'empathie et la volonté d'aider! Alors l'empathie et la volonté d'aider. Déjà, on va commencer par une définition d'empathie. A ne pas confondre avec sympathie. C'est très similaire mais ce n'est pas exactement la même chose.  L'empathie, en fait si vous voulez, c'est la capacité qu'on a tous à pouvoir se mettre à la place des autres. C'est la possibilité, en fait, de pouvoir sentir les problèmes qu'a une personne, sentir les difficultés, sentir la douleur et sentir le plaisir. Je prends un exemple très simple pour vous expliquer l'empathie et vous confirmer qu'on l'a tous. Imaginons vous regardez des vidéos, de vidéo gag, d'accord, vous voyez quelqu'un qui tombe par terre et qui se fait très mal. Très souvent on arrive même à sentir cette douleur. Quand on se tient, on se courbe, on fait un geste qui montre, qui trouve comme quoi on a senti cette douleur. Au moins d'une manière émotionnelle.  Pareil je dirais pour le plaisir, par exemple, quand vous regardez des photos de votre bébé. Ou que vous regardez par exemple des vidéos, par exemple on va rester dans les vidéos, des vidéos d'un enfant qui sourit. Ou des vidéos de chats par exemple, ou là on a tout de suite, on sent quelque chose émotionnellement très fort qui fait qu'on arrive à sentir la douleur et le plaisir, la joie. Tout ça, c'est l'empathie.  Quand vous avez de l'empathie envers vos clients, l'importance de l'empathie dans la vente, c'est que vous avez la possibilité non pas de prédire, on va dire, ce que va vous dire votre client mais de vous mettre à sa place. De comprendre son problème. De dire oui, si c'était pour moi je ferai ça. Si c'était pour un ami, je l‘aiderai comme ça. Parce que j'ai compris son problème. Je comprends sa problématique où je comprends qu'est-ce qu'il souhaite obtenir. Voilà comment vous pouvez faire, tout simplement, preuve d'empathie avec vos clients.  3 petites astuces à nouveau pour l'empathie et la volonté d'aider c'est: 1- Devenez expert en leurs problèmes! Premièrement devenir un expert en leur problème. Avoir un doctorat des problèmes de vos clients. Et savoir aussi qu'est-ce qu'il souhaite obtenir ou qu'est-ce qu'ils ont du mal à obtenir et qu'il voudrait par-dessus tout.  À partir du moment où vous savez ça, en faisant preuve d'empathie, à ce moment-là, vous allez pouvoir savoir comment les aider, comment leur recommander. 2- Recommandez comme à un ami! Deuxième astuce pour l'empathie et la volonté d'aider, c'est recommandez comme à un ami. En fait, tout simplement, traiter vos clients comme si c'était déjà vos amis. Alors je vous dis pas d'avoir des familiarités avec eux ou de faire des mauvaises blagues. Je vous dis simplement de les traiter comme si c'était des amis.  Très souvent c'est difficile quand on a des clients qui sont difficiles. Mais quand vous leur montrez que vous êtes vraiment là pour les aider, quand vous quand vous leur recommandé comme si c'était un ami, comme si c'était un parent, comme si c'était votre grand-mère, comme si c'était votre père, à partir du moment où vous leur recommandez comme à un ami, ils vont sentir que c'est pour leur bien.  Ils ne vont pas sentir, en fait, que vous le faites pour leur vendre quelque chose. Le but du jeu c'est pas tromper les gens, mais c'est vraiment le faire avec le cœur. Je le répète et je le répéterai souvent, faites les choses avec le cœur.  Recommandez à vos clients comme à des amis, c'est donc la deuxième clé de l'empathie et de la volonté d'aider.  3- Force invisible. Et tout ça être, expert en leur problème, savoir ce qu'il désire et savoir leur recommandé comme à un ami, ça vous donne une force invisible qui est celle de faire le bien. Vous faites du bien autour de vous. Vous arranger, vous solutionner, vous prenez en charge les problèmes de votre client et vous essayez de les résoudre. Et cette force invisible, c'est celle qui va faire que tout va bien se passer derrière. C'est celle qui va faire que votre client, il va croire en vous. C'est celle qui va faire que vous allez gagner, on va dire, en crédibilité. Vous allez gagner en confiance avec votre client. Et ça, la confiance, c'est ce que vous achète le client. Il ne vous achète pas un produit. Il ne vous achète pas un service. Il fait confiance pour que vous lui procuriez ce qui lui résoud un problème ou pour que vous lui procuriez ce dont il a besoin.  Cette étape de l'empathie et de la volonté d'aider, qui répond à l'erreur d'ignorer les besoins du client, est celle qui va vous propulser directement vers la vente éthique, vers le passage du bon de commande, vers la signature du contrat.  La vente éthique, c'est celle qui va répondre, c'est la solution aux personnes qui essaient de forcer les ventes.  3/ La vente éthique et responsable. Parlons de l'importance de la vente éthique. La vente éthique c'est le contraire de forcer les ventes quand vous, vous souhaitez simplement tirer profit de la situation.  Vous pouvez le faire. Ça peut marcher sur du court terme. Très bien, effectivement vous pouvez le faire mais par contre vous ne devriez pas le faire.  Tout simplement parce que si vous voulez, à court terme, vous allez peut-être générer ce bon de commande qui va vous faire arriver à l'objectif mensuel. Néanmoins, le mois suivant, vous perdrez peut-être le client à partir du moment où il se rendra compte que vous lui avez vendu quelque chose qui ne lui sert à rien.  Alors qu'est-ce qui sert et qu'est-ce qui ne sert à rien? et bien ce qui ne résout pas un problème de votre client, ça ne sert à rien. Ce qui ne satisfait pas un besoin de vos clients, ça ne sert à rien. Ne le vendez pas, ne le vendez pas! On verra après mais pour vous anticiper, vous ferez les devoirs et vous chercherez dans vos produits et dans vos services quels sont ces produits et ces services qui répondent aux besoins de vos clients ou à leurs problèmes.  À nouveau 3 astuces pour faire une bonne vente éthique et responsable: 1- Talk time La première astuce, le “talk time”. Le temps que vous allez passer à parler avec ces clients. Le temps que vous allez leur dédié.  Alors ça veut pas dire de leur prendre du temps, ça veut pas dire de leur voler du temps, mais ça veut dire de prendre tout le temps qu'il faut pour pouvoir bien clarifier les besoins de votre client. Une fois de plus.  Vous prenez du temps, vous passez du temps avec eux, vous parlez avec eux, vous les laissez parler, vous les écoutez, vous répondez à leurs questions. Et de cette manière, en conversant, plus de temps vous allez passer avec eux, plus vous allez pouvoir être capable de répondre à leurs besoins, d'une manière précise.  2- Répondez à leurs besoins! Répondre à leurs besoins, c'est la deuxième astuces de la vente éthique. J'insiste encore là-dessus. Vous allez dire “il ne fait que se répéter”, mais c'est vraiment ce qu'il y a de plus important. C'est répondez aux besoins de vos clients.  Si je devais résumer la vente éthique en une phrase, je dirais que la vente éthique c'est bien connaître les désirs et les problèmes de vos clients afin de leur apporter ce dont ils ont besoin.  3- Générez de la confiance Ceci dit, ça nous amène au dernier tips de la vente éthique. C'est que vous allez ainsi générer de la confiance. En passant du temps à répondre à leurs questions et à les écouter vous allez pouvoir répondre à leurs besoins et vous allez générer de la confiance.  Conclusion Voilà comment on résume aujourd'hui les trois parties du PENDANT. Donc la communication pragmatique, l'empathie et la volonté d'aider et la vente éthique. Et tout ceci répond aux trois problèmes qu'on a, en règle générale, dans la partie du PENDANT qui est de ne pas savoir comment aborder le client, d'écouter mal et de ne pas clarifier, et d'ignorer les besoins des clients ainsi que de forcer les ventes.  Très important, cette partie PENDANT. Si vous arrivez à la comprendre de la même manière que j'ai essayé de vous l'expliquer, d'une manière très simple, très précise mais très simple, voici les avantages dont vous allez pouvoir tirer parti pour pouvoir aider vos clients:  -En ayant un pitch, vous allez devenir clair et précis. -En écoutant votre client, vous allez être concentré -En découvrant et en clarifiant, vous allez être informé.  -En étant expert en problèmes de vos clients, ou en sachant comment satisfaire leurs désirs, vous allez leur devenir utile.  -En sachant recommander comme un ami vous allez être digne de confiance -Et avec cette force invisible de l'empathie et de la volonté d'aider, vous allez devenir invincible, invulnérable...  -En passant du temps avec votre client à l'écouter, vous allez devenir attentif.  -En répondant à leurs besoin, à leurs yeux vous allez devenir des experts  -Et en générant de la confiance, vous allez devenir crédible.  Voilà comment j'ai surmonté tous les obstacles chaque fois que j'ai recommencé dans une nouvelle entreprise et voilà comment à chaque fois je me suis positionné avec une identité, je me suis rendu visible et je me suis rendu crédible.  Alors probablement que cette méthode, ça va faire grincer les dents de mes confrères, mais je répète que cette méthode, je voulais une méthode simple, d'accord, pas compliqué, je pourrais faire des choses plus compliquées mais c'est... ça deviendrait limite pas intéressant. Et en fait, c'est une méthode vraiment pour les personnes qui débutent ou qui échouent.  C'est, on va dire, des principes de base. À partir de là, vous allez construire votre propre identité, vous allez créer et augmenter votre visibilité et vous aurez de la crédibilité. Envers vos confrères, envers vos collègues et surtout avec vos clients. Donc, très important tout ça.  Ce qu'on a dit c'était la partie PENDANT et comme vous pouvez le voir ça ressemble pas à de la négociation. C'est simplement des relations humaines. On aime tous acheter, on a horreur qu'on nous vende. Ça vous dit quelque chose? :) Voilà pour aujourd'hui, on a fini avec cette partie PENDANT.  Demain on va voir donc la partie APRÈS, et ça commence tout de suite après :)  On enchaînera avec ça pour que ce soit, pour que ça reste Digest, d'accord, pas trop compliqué  Vous pouvez voir les chapitres précédents, les podcasts précédent comme je vous ai dit, soit directement sur ma page, soit directement vous pouvez vous les télécharger et comme ça vous pouvez les écouter quand vous voulez.  Ma vision c'est de faire de la vente un monde meilleur. Ma mission c'est de vous aider à devenir des experts  Et l'action c'est ce que vous, vous devez apporter pour réussir dans la vente.  Souvenez-vous mes très chers Phoenix vous êtes la lumière de mes contenus. Je répondrai personnellement à toutes vos questions. Vous pouvez me contacter par message privé sur Instagram at @antoinehernandezconsultant , tout accroché. Ou vous pouvez aussi me poser des questions ou me demander une consultation entièrement gratuite, sans aucun compromis ou engagement de votre part. Pour le faire, vous pouvez accéder au formulaire de contact dans le menu contact de mon site internet https://www.antoinehernandez.com .  Je vous remercie, très cher Phoenix, de m'avoir dédié ce temps à m'écouter et j'espère que je vous ai aidé, du moins c'est mon intention. J'espère que vous allez pouvoir apprendre à renaître de vos cendres et à dominer facilement toutes les phases du processus de vente avec ma méthode de A à Z en 3 étapes.  Très cher Phoenix vous n'êtes plus, et vous ne serez jamais plus, tout seul!  C'est tout pour aujourd'hui. Je vous donne rendez-vous à demain pour la suite du podcast les secrets de la vente !  à bientôt.

In 1872, a group of men that included future Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., father of modern psychology William James, and eccentric polymath Charles Sanders Peirce, formed a philosophical society, called the "Metaphysical Club," to exchange and discuss ideas. While very little is known about how this conversational club was conducted over its nine months of life, we do know that each of its individual members made significant contributions to a uniquely American philosophy called pragmatism, and that pragmatism would in turn greatly influence everything from legal theory to education.My guest today profiles the lives and thinking of each of these interesting men in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book: The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America. His name is Louis Menand, he's a Professor of English at Harvard, and today we have a conversation about what the philosophy of pragmatism is about, why Holmes, James, and Peirce, as well as the intellectual John Dewey, arrived at, embraced, and forwarded its principles, and how pragmatism shaped American life between the Civil War and WWI. We end our conversation with why pragmatism fell out of favor, and whether it remains salient today.Resources Related to the PodcastAoM Podcast #576 on American philosophy, including pragmatismConsequences of Pragmatism by Richard RortyJohn Dewey and American Democracy by Robert WestbrookConnect With Louis MenandLouis's Faculty Page at Harvard

Welcome to The Story of Language: an original podcast series about language, linguistics, cognition, and culture. In this bonus episode we talk about the state of modern linguistics, including the effects of the replication crisis, scientific fraud, Anglocentrism, and how the underappreciated work of Charles Sanders Peirce might offer a universal theory of how language works.

Coming to some semblance of consensus opinion is a paramount challenge in a pluralistic world. We disagree on what constitutes truth and how we ought to obtain it, whether our undertaking be moral, scientific, or political.  It has been a common practice in Western philosophy to focus on uncovering an accurate reflection of reality, in hopes that by showing others these true representations of the world, we can bring our community members into agreement. This view holds that if we can clearly present objective truth, we can create meaningful consensus en route to fostering a more peaceful and thriving existence for humanity. In reality, people disagree—oftentimes vehemently, and even violently—on what counts as evidence and which methods for discovering truth are most convincing. We pit our chosen experts against one another. Your preferred philosopher or politician may persuade you and your circle of friends, but what do we do when others are unmoved by what seems, to us, to be so obviously true?  Jeffrey Howard speaks with Justin Marshall, a pragmatist philosopher with a graduate degree from George Mason University. He argues that better understanding how our beliefs are formed can help us to navigate the ways in which truth and divergent viewpoints continually perplex liberal democracies and pluralistic societies. Drawing inspiration from thinkers like William James, Charles Sanders Peirce, and Richard Rorty, he explains the roles personal temperament, experiences, language, and culture play in shaping truth. He challenges us to practice more intellectual humility and to reconsider the idea that we can know whether our ideas actually hook up to reality in any meaningful or certain way. To what degree are our beliefs reflections of our temperaments rather than reflections of objective reality? How might it benefit us to view language as a tool for helping us to better cope with reality rather than as a one-to-one representation of the world? If our notions of truth are contingent upon our particular cultures, personal histories, or demographic backgrounds, how do we avoid the trap of philosophical relativism? And, what social and political solutions can philosophical pragmatism offer us in a pluralistic world? Show Notes “The Fixation of Belief” by Charles Sanders Peirce (1877) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking by William James (1907) “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality” by Richard Rorty (1998) “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” by Thomas Nagel (1974) The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (1781) Overdoing Democracy by Robert Talisse (2019) Pragmatism, Postmodernism, and the Future of Philosophy by John Stuhr (2003) Ep. 7 Charles Sanders Peirce and Inquiry as an Act of Love w/ David O’Hara (2021) Ep. 1 Richard Rorty and Achieving Our Country w/ Adrian Rutt (2020)

En esta ocasión, Javier Grajales Fernández se reúne con Paniel Osberto Reyes Cárdenas, filósofo, para hablar sobre el tema del pragmatismo, las fake news, las redes sociales, la democracia y la censura en internet. De igual manera, abordaremos la propuesta filosófica de Charles Sanders Peirce sobre la semiótica. ¡Gracias por tu apoyo! Puedes seguir este proyecto en:

Many Western philosophers have approached questions of knowledge conceiving of truth as something that is “out there,” unchangeable, abstract, and universal. There is an inherent structure in the universe and we must discover what exactly it is. One merely needs to uncover a segment of the structure of the universe and the rest of truth will reveal itself. In this tradition, truth is viewed as foundational and essential. Truth can be reasoned to from the solitude of one’s desk. Experience doesn’t change truth, doesn’t touch it. Truths just need to be gathered in. In other words, obtaining truth means getting the concepts in our minds to mirror or correspond to that which exists “out there” in reality. According to this view, an individual’s reason can carry them to the whole of noble, perfect truth.  By contrast, pragmatist philosophers like Charles Sanders Peirce argue that the pursuit of truth is a collective endeavor manifesting in what he calls “the community of inquirers.” No single individual has a totalized view of reality. In a world that is constantly changing and malleable, we must turn toward experience, pushing against the ease of abstractions moving into the messy realities of existence. Inquiry is not just experiential but experimental. We test out the truth qualities and meaning of our ideas according to their practical consequences, and not what is supposed a priori. By expanding our community of fellow inquirers, we expose ourselves to a wider range of experiences that can tell us a bit more about the practical consequences of ideas in the lives of many people, across many times, and within particular places. Lived experiences matter. Jeffrey Howard speaks with David O'Hara, Professor of Philosophy, Classics, and Environmental Studies at Augustana University in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. He is also Chair of the Department of Religion, Philosophy, and Classics, and directs programs in Environmental Studies and Sustainability. A scholar of Charles Sanders Peirce, Plato, and C.S. Lewis, his current research focuses on the relationships between fish and forests.  He introduces us to pragmatism, or pragmaticism, as Peirce eventually came to call his philosophy in an effort to differentiate his views from those of fellow pragmatist William James. In addition to elaborating on what the pragmatic maxim offers us, O’Hara emphasizes the communitarian ethos necessary for satisfactory inquiry. Central to Peirce’s notion of inquiry are the values of inclusion, humility, and love, which are for both Peirce and O’Hara informed by their pragmatist views on scripture.  Complete truth is an infinite horizon we’ll encounter at “the end of inquiry,” to borrow Peirce’s term, a future that we’ll likely never arrive at. But who is included in the community of inquirers? How are we to make sense of a plurality of communities? How do we preserve the integrity of the community without becoming exclusionary of other much-needed perspectives? What does it mean to be an expert in a community of divergent viewpoints? And do experts’ views receive greater weight within the community of inquirers?    Show Notes American Philosophers Read Scripture edited by Jacob L. Goodson (2020)  "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" by Charles Sanders Peirce (1878) The Future of Religion by Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo (2007) “The Will to Believe” by William James (1896) The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James (1902) “A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God” by Charles Sanders Peirce (1908) “Dmesis” by Charles Sanders Pierce (1892)

In Pragmatism's Evolution: Organism and Environment in American Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Trevor Pearce demonstrates that the philosophical tradition of pragmatism owes an enormous debt to specific biological debates in the late 1800s, especially those concerning the role of the environment in development and evolution. Many are familiar with John Dewey's 1909 assertion that evolutionary ideas overturned two thousand years of philosophy--but what exactly happened in the fifty years prior to Dewey's claim? What form did evolutionary ideas take? When and how were they received by American philosophers? Although the various thinkers associated with pragmatism--from Charles Sanders Peirce to Jane Addams and beyond--were towering figures in American intellectual life, few realize the full extent of their engagement with the life sciences. In his analysis, Pearce focuses on a series of debates in biology from 1860 to 1910--from the instincts of honeybees to the inheritance of acquired characteristics--in which the pragmatists were active participants. If we want to understand the pragmatists and their influence, Pearce argues, we need to understand the relationship between pragmatism and biology. Trevor Pearce is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Alec Kacew is a medical school student at the University of Chicago. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Pragmatism’s Evolution: Organism and Environment in American Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Trevor Pearce demonstrates that the philosophical tradition of pragmatism owes an enormous debt to specific biological debates in the late 1800s, especially those concerning the role of the environment in development and evolution. Many are familiar with John Dewey's 1909 assertion that evolutionary ideas overturned two thousand years of philosophy--but what exactly happened in the fifty years prior to Dewey's claim? What form did evolutionary ideas take? When and how were they received by American philosophers? Although the various thinkers associated with pragmatism--from Charles Sanders Peirce to Jane Addams and beyond--were towering figures in American intellectual life, few realize the full extent of their engagement with the life sciences. In his analysis, Pearce focuses on a series of debates in biology from 1860 to 1910--from the instincts of honeybees to the inheritance of acquired characteristics--in which the pragmatists were active participants. If we want to understand the pragmatists and their influence, Pearce argues, we need to understand the relationship between pragmatism and biology. Trevor Pearce is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Alec Kacew is a medical school student at the University of Chicago. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Pragmatism’s Evolution: Organism and Environment in American Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Trevor Pearce demonstrates that the philosophical tradition of pragmatism owes an enormous debt to specific biological debates in the late 1800s, especially those concerning the role of the environment in development and evolution. Many are familiar with John Dewey's 1909 assertion that evolutionary ideas overturned two thousand years of philosophy--but what exactly happened in the fifty years prior to Dewey's claim? What form did evolutionary ideas take? When and how were they received by American philosophers? Although the various thinkers associated with pragmatism--from Charles Sanders Peirce to Jane Addams and beyond--were towering figures in American intellectual life, few realize the full extent of their engagement with the life sciences. In his analysis, Pearce focuses on a series of debates in biology from 1860 to 1910--from the instincts of honeybees to the inheritance of acquired characteristics--in which the pragmatists were active participants. If we want to understand the pragmatists and their influence, Pearce argues, we need to understand the relationship between pragmatism and biology. Trevor Pearce is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Alec Kacew is a medical school student at the University of Chicago. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Pragmatism’s Evolution: Organism and Environment in American Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Trevor Pearce demonstrates that the philosophical tradition of pragmatism owes an enormous debt to specific biological debates in the late 1800s, especially those concerning the role of the environment in development and evolution. Many are familiar with John Dewey's 1909 assertion that evolutionary ideas overturned two thousand years of philosophy--but what exactly happened in the fifty years prior to Dewey's claim? What form did evolutionary ideas take? When and how were they received by American philosophers? Although the various thinkers associated with pragmatism--from Charles Sanders Peirce to Jane Addams and beyond--were towering figures in American intellectual life, few realize the full extent of their engagement with the life sciences. In his analysis, Pearce focuses on a series of debates in biology from 1860 to 1910--from the instincts of honeybees to the inheritance of acquired characteristics--in which the pragmatists were active participants. If we want to understand the pragmatists and their influence, Pearce argues, we need to understand the relationship between pragmatism and biology. Trevor Pearce is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Alec Kacew is a medical school student at the University of Chicago. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Pragmatism’s Evolution: Organism and Environment in American Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, 2020), Trevor Pearce demonstrates that the philosophical tradition of pragmatism owes an enormous debt to specific biological debates in the late 1800s, especially those concerning the role of the environment in development and evolution. Many are familiar with John Dewey's 1909 assertion that evolutionary ideas overturned two thousand years of philosophy--but what exactly happened in the fifty years prior to Dewey's claim? What form did evolutionary ideas take? When and how were they received by American philosophers? Although the various thinkers associated with pragmatism--from Charles Sanders Peirce to Jane Addams and beyond--were towering figures in American intellectual life, few realize the full extent of their engagement with the life sciences. In his analysis, Pearce focuses on a series of debates in biology from 1860 to 1910--from the instincts of honeybees to the inheritance of acquired characteristics--in which the pragmatists were active participants. If we want to understand the pragmatists and their influence, Pearce argues, we need to understand the relationship between pragmatism and biology. Trevor Pearce is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Alec Kacew is a medical school student at the University of Chicago. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dan Everett is the closest thing we have to a real life Indiana Jones. He is an academic whose work has mostly taken place in the far reaches of the jungle, where few others dare to tread. His crowning achievement is learning the Pirahã language, which before Dan undertook it had never before been cracked by an outsider. Dan began his swashbuckling career as a missionary and Bible translator. After a while, his ideological alliances shifted and he remained in the Amazon as an anthropologist and linguist. In this interview we talk about how this shift impacted his relationship with his family (imagine having a crisis of faith while on a mission in the Amazon while your entire family is along with you; his ex-wife, by the way, is still there as a missionary). We also talk about how he brought back evidence that directly contradicted major claims that Chomsky had made, his experience between the subject of famous American writer Tom Wolfe's last book before he died (The Kingdom of Speech), and Everett's forthcoming project on the life of Charles Sanders Peirce. Dan's official title is Trustee Professor of Cognitive Sciences at Bentley University. A picture of Dan, fully immersed: https://daneverettbooks.com/about-dan/ More info available at codykommers.com/podcast

In this lecture from my series on "The 8 Most Misunderstood Things in the Bible," I tackle Leviticus's preoccupation with "uncleanness" and "impurity" that seems to stigmatize and isolate women, the sick, and others.  It's one of those things that make people pick up a Hebrew Bible and say, "This stuff is barbaric and misogynistic."  I argue that this is likely the parade example of misunderstanding Torah, based on misleading translation and the human being's inherent penchant for presuming metaphysics (invisible mechanisms that operate like they're physical but we just can't see, hear, or touch them?).  Using the philosophical therapy of philosophical Pragmatism (found in the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and Richard Rorty), I present "tamei" not as "uncleanness" but rather as "time-out," a state in which one is required to take grief leave, maternity leave, medical leave, and, for one week a month, sexual leave.  We can learn a lot from the Torah's insistence that these can only be norms that do not stigmatize individuals if they are required and not optional, and I apply that to our modern issues with people being presumed to return to work during grief, sickness, and maternity, and are stigmatized when they do not.  At the end, I address two questions, one being that I am not dealing sufficiently with the bad-patriarchal bent of the Torah.  You'll hear my answer at the end.

Boolean algebra Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us to innovate (and sometimes cope with) the future! Today we're going to talk a little about math. Or logic. Computers are just a bunch of zeroes and ones, right? Binary. They make shirts about it. You know, there are 10 types of people in the world. But where did that come from? After centuries of trying to build computing devices that could help with math using gears that had lots of slots in them, armed with tubes and then transistors, we had to come up with a simpler form of logic. And why write your own complicated math when you can borrow it and have instant converts to your cause? Technical innovations are often comprised of a lot of building blocks from different fields of scientific or scholastic studies. The 0s and 1s, which make up the flip-flop circuits computers are so famous for, are made possible by the concept that all logic can be broken down into either true or false. And so the mathematical logic that we have built trillions of dollars in industry off of began in 1847 in a book called The Mathematical Analysis of Logic, by George Boole. He would follow that up in a book called An Investigation of the Laws of Thought in 1854. He was he father of what we would later call Boolean Algebra once the science of an entire mathematical language built on true and false matured enough for Charles Sanders Peirce wrote a book called The Simplest Mathematics and had a title called Boolian Algebra with One Constant. By 1913, there were many more works with the name and it became Boolean algebra. This was right around the time that the electronic research community had first started experimenting with using vacuum tubes as flip-flop switches. So there's elementary algebra where you can have any old number with any old logical operation. Those operators can be addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. But in boolean algebra the only variables available are a 0 or a 1. Later we would get abstract algebra as well, but for computing it was way simpler to just stick with those 0s and 1s and in fact, ditching the gears from the old electromechanical computing paved the way for tubes to act as flip-flop switches, and transistors to replace those. And the evolutions came. Both to the efficiency of flip-flop switches and to the increasingly complex uses for mechanical computing devices. But they hadn't all been mashed up together. So set theory and statistics were evolving. And Huntington, Jevons, Schröder, basically perfected Boolean logic, paving the way for MH Stone to provide that Boolean algebra is isomorphic to a field of sets by 1936. And so it should come as no surprise that Boolean algebra would be key to the development of basic mathematical functions used on the Berry-Attansoff computer. Remember that back then, all computing was basically used for math. Claude Shannon would help apply Boolean algebra to switching circuits. This involved binary decision diagrams for synthesizing and verifying the design of logic circuits. And so we could analyze and design circuits using algebra to define logic gates. Those gates would get smaller and faster and combined using combinational logic until we got LSI circuits and later with the automation of the design of chips, VLSI. So to put it super-simple, let's say you are trying to do some maths. First up, you convert values to bits, which are binary digits. Those binary digits would be represented as a 0 or a 1, expressed in binary algebra as . There's a substantial amount of information you can pack into those bits, with all major characters easily allowed for in a byte, which is 8 of those bits. So let's say you also map your algebraic operators using those 0s and 1s, another byte. Now you can add the number in the first byte. To do so though, you would need to basically translate the notations from classical propositional calculus to their expression in Boolean algebra, typically done in an assembler. Much, much more logic is required to apply quantifiers. And simple true values are 0 and 1 but have a one step truth table to define AND (also known as a conjunction), OR (also known as a disjunction), and NOT XOR (also known as an exclusive-or). This allows for an exponential increase in the amount of logic you can apply to a problem. The act of deceasing if the problem satisfies the ability to translate into boolean capabilities is known as the Boolean satisfiability problem or SAT. At this point though, all problems really seem solvable using some model of computation given the amount of complex circuitry we now have. So the computer interprets information the functions and sets the state of a switch based on the input. The computer then combines all those trues and false into the necessary logic and outputs an answer. Because the 0s and 1s took too much the input got moved to punch cards, and modern programming was born. These days we can also add Boolean logic into higher functions, such as running AND for google searches. So ultimately the point of this episode is to explore what exactly all those 0s and 1s are. They're complex thoughts and formulas expressed as true and false using complicated Boolean algebra to construct them. Now, there's a chance that some day we'll find something beyond a transistor. And then we can bring a much more complicated expression of thought broken down into different forms of algebra. But there's also the chance that Boolean algebra sitting on transistors or other things that are the next evolution of boolean gates or transistors is really, well, kinda' it. So from the Barry-Attansoff computer comes Colossus and then ENIAC in 1945. It wasn't obvious yet but nearly 100 years after the development of Boolean algebra, it had been combined with several other technologies to usher in the computing revolution, setting up the evolution to microprocessors and the modern computer. These days, few programmers are constrained by programming in Boolean logic. Instead, we have many more options. Although I happen to believe that understanding this fundamental building block was one of the most important aspects of studying computer science and provided an important foundation to computing in general. So thank you for listening to this episode. I'm sure algebra got ya' totally interested and that you're super-into math. But thanks for listening anyways. I'm pretty lucky to have ya'. Have a great day

Dr. Christopher Southgate is a biochemist turned influential theologian...who just happens to be a well published poet.  (Read this powerful one... when it is safe to cry). Southgate is a Professor at Exeter University in the UK and part of the 'God and the Book of Nature' project I am working on. Since recording this interview I have had the chance to spend time with him and am enthusiastic to introduce him to many of you. In this conversation we discuss... The changing shape of the religion and science conversation how has the scientific study of religion itself shaped a scientifically engaged theology from a particular tradition the problem of evil and suffering in nature the free will defense in the face of natural evil the "lazy default in Christian thinking" Irenaeus wasn't Irenaean? the Christian need to recover immanence what is divine glory? the Biblical protest of God and the need for its presence in worship "humankind cannot bear much of reality" theologizing with Charles Sanders Peirce's semiotics trauma and the community of faith Follow the podcast, drop a review, send feedback/questions or become a member of the HBC Community. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this experiential seminar, originally given live, Jeff Carreira speaks about Radical Inclusivity. Radical Inclusivity can be thought of as the discovery of an inside that has no outside. It is also a way of accessing and understanding the spiritual experience more often called non-duality. Non-Duality means literally not-two. It is the experience of Oneness, or what the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce called Firstness.

Qual foi a intenção do Bolsonaro ao usar os símbolos da Bíblia e da Constituição no discurso da posse? Neste episódio vamos investigar o poder dos signos através da semiótica do filósofo Charles Sanders Peirce.

John Kaag is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. American Philosophy: A Love Story (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016) won the John Dewey Prize from the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Kaag offers a rich history, philosophical inquiry and a memoir of an existential crisis that takes us to the heart of American philosophy. He embarks on an unexpected journey of discover in the abandoned library at West Wind, the estate of the early twentieth-century philosopher William Ernest Hocking, an intellectual descendent of William James. At West Wind, Kaag finds an invaluable repository of Hocking’s thinking, evidence of many significant friendships, and the remains of fundamental questions of American philosophy. Like his philosophical forbearers he ponders essential questions: Is life worth living? What is the meaning of life? How are we both free and obligated to others? Seeking answers, Kaag engages with the thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Sanders Peirce and Josiah Royce, who drew on a wealth of classical and continental philosophy to create an American philosophical tradition. Kaag has produced a personal and intellectual creative work sure to inspire all who ask the same questions. This episode of New Books in American Studies was produced in cooperation with the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Lilian Calles Barger is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book is entitled The World Come of Age: An Intellectual History of Liberation Theology (Oxford University Press, 2018). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Kaag is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. American Philosophy: A Love Story (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016) won the John Dewey Prize from the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Kaag offers a rich history, philosophical inquiry and a memoir of an existential crisis that takes us to the heart of American philosophy. He embarks on an unexpected journey of discover in the abandoned library at West Wind, the estate of the early twentieth-century philosopher William Ernest Hocking, an intellectual descendent of William James. At West Wind, Kaag finds an invaluable repository of Hocking’s thinking, evidence of many significant friendships, and the remains of fundamental questions of American philosophy. Like his philosophical forbearers he ponders essential questions: Is life worth living? What is the meaning of life? How are we both free and obligated to others? Seeking answers, Kaag engages with the thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Sanders Peirce and Josiah Royce, who drew on a wealth of classical and continental philosophy to create an American philosophical tradition. Kaag has produced a personal and intellectual creative work sure to inspire all who ask the same questions. This episode of New Books in American Studies was produced in cooperation with the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Lilian Calles Barger is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book is entitled The World Come of Age: An Intellectual History of Liberation Theology (Oxford University Press, 2018). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Kaag is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. American Philosophy: A Love Story (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016) won the John Dewey Prize from the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Kaag offers a rich history, philosophical inquiry and a memoir of an existential crisis that takes us to the heart of American philosophy. He embarks on an unexpected journey of discover in the abandoned library at West Wind, the estate of the early twentieth-century philosopher William Ernest Hocking, an intellectual descendent of William James. At West Wind, Kaag finds an invaluable repository of Hocking’s thinking, evidence of many significant friendships, and the remains of fundamental questions of American philosophy. Like his philosophical forbearers he ponders essential questions: Is life worth living? What is the meaning of life? How are we both free and obligated to others? Seeking answers, Kaag engages with the thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Sanders Peirce and Josiah Royce, who drew on a wealth of classical and continental philosophy to create an American philosophical tradition. Kaag has produced a personal and intellectual creative work sure to inspire all who ask the same questions. This episode of New Books in American Studies was produced in cooperation with the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Lilian Calles Barger is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book is entitled The World Come of Age: An Intellectual History of Liberation Theology (Oxford University Press, 2018). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Kaag is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. American Philosophy: A Love Story (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016) won the John Dewey Prize from the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Kaag offers a rich history, philosophical inquiry and a memoir of an existential crisis that takes us to the heart of American philosophy. He embarks on an unexpected journey of discover in the abandoned library at West Wind, the estate of the early twentieth-century philosopher William Ernest Hocking, an intellectual descendent of William James. At West Wind, Kaag finds an invaluable repository of Hocking’s thinking, evidence of many significant friendships, and the remains of fundamental questions of American philosophy. Like his philosophical forbearers he ponders essential questions: Is life worth living? What is the meaning of life? How are we both free and obligated to others? Seeking answers, Kaag engages with the thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Sanders Peirce and Josiah Royce, who drew on a wealth of classical and continental philosophy to create an American philosophical tradition. Kaag has produced a personal and intellectual creative work sure to inspire all who ask the same questions. This episode of New Books in American Studies was produced in cooperation with the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Lilian Calles Barger is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book is entitled The World Come of Age: An Intellectual History of Liberation Theology (Oxford University Press, 2018). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Kaag is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. American Philosophy: A Love Story (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016) won the John Dewey Prize from the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Kaag offers a rich history, philosophical inquiry and a memoir of an existential crisis that takes us to the heart of American philosophy. He embarks on an unexpected journey of discover in the abandoned library at West Wind, the estate of the early twentieth-century philosopher William Ernest Hocking, an intellectual descendent of William James. At West Wind, Kaag finds an invaluable repository of Hocking’s thinking, evidence of many significant friendships, and the remains of fundamental questions of American philosophy. Like his philosophical forbearers he ponders essential questions: Is life worth living? What is the meaning of life? How are we both free and obligated to others? Seeking answers, Kaag engages with the thinkers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Sanders Peirce and Josiah Royce, who drew on a wealth of classical and continental philosophy to create an American philosophical tradition. Kaag has produced a personal and intellectual creative work sure to inspire all who ask the same questions. This episode of New Books in American Studies was produced in cooperation with the Society for U.S. Intellectual History. Lilian Calles Barger is a cultural, intellectual and gender historian. Her current book is entitled The World Come of Age: An Intellectual History of Liberation Theology (Oxford University Press, 2018). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Onderbewustzijn en de exocortex. En we wachten op Tim Cook terwijl we de podcast opnemen. Onderwerpen Charles Sanders Peirce Media for Thinking the Unthinkable Apple ClassKit The Expanse op IMDb Jodorowsky’s Dune The Incal Grote dank aan de vrienden van de Appels en Peren Show: Nozzman voor het coverartwork, Clublime voor de introjingle en al onze Patreons.

Ícones foram criados para relacionar conceitos computacionais com objetos do dia-a-dia que as pessoas já conhecem e sabem usar. Porém, com o passar do tempo, ícones passaram a representar conceitos não necessariamente computacionais. A semiótica aplicada ao design de ícones permite estudar esses novos processos de significação e sua contribuição para a Interação Humano Computador.Slides Áudio Gravação de aula realizada na Apple Developer Academy PUCPR. Design de Ícones e Semiótica da Interação [MP3] 1 hora e 24 minutos Transcrição A palavra ícone foi utilizada primeiramente para definir certos tipos de pinturas e afrescos que expressavam a essência das divindades Cristãs. Esse formato ficou bastante popular nos primeiros séculos da Igreja Ortodoxa. Essa imagem é um detalhe do ícone mais antigo ainda existente, Cristo Pantocrátor (século VI). O ícone provavelmente representaria a posição dual de Jesus Cristo como homem e como Deus. Utilizando uma técnica de divisão e espelhamento das metades da imagem, fica claro que os dois lados da face do Cristo são muito diferentes. A face esquerda de Cristo parece mais velha e dura do que a face da direita, sugerindo o aspecto divino. A face da direita parece mais temerosa e jovial, sugerindo o aspecto humano. O ícone religioso é rico em detalhes e significados. No século VIII, emergiu um movimento iconoclasta no Império Bizantino que destruiu a maior parte dos ícones da época. Nesta iluminura, o autor faz uma analogia entre o pintor de ícones e os algozes de Cristo. O ícone estaria restringindo a divindade a uma representação fixa, que não faz jus à natureza divina. A adoração dos ícones assim como a iconoclastia são frutos de uma tensão que se acumula no cerne da sociedade moderna. Henri Lefebvre escreveu prolificamente sobre a contradição entre representação e realidade. Essa contradição foi magistralmente revelada por René Magritte na obra A Traição das Imagens (1928). A imagem de um cachimbo contradiz a frase "Isto não é um cachimbo", porém, a frase também é uma imagem. Como seria possível falar de um cachimbo sem a representação mínima dele pela linguagem? Na metade do século XX, a representação se tornou tão oposta à realidade que foi necessário construir máquinas capazes de processar signos de maneira independente da representação mecânica. Alan Turin e colegas construíram em 1939 a primeira máquina semiótica com o intuito de quebrar o código de criptografia alemã. Essa máquina desvinculava a representação do cálculo da representação mecânica. O filme "O jogo da imitação" (2014) conta essa história muito bem. A representação independente do suporte permitiu o surgimento de uma miríade de conceitos computacionais. Esses conceitos, entretanto, eram abstratos demais para quem não tinha uma formação matemática ou de engenharia. Com a intenção de tornar conceitos computacionais mais concretos e, portanto, acessíveis para especialistas de outras áreas, Douglas Engelbart e sua equipe na SRI International criaram o mouse em 1964, um dispositivo apontador que permitia interagir com representações computacionais de uma maneira mais direta. Diversas outras inovações surgiram à partir disso, tal como o hipertexto, o comando copiar e colar e outras. Nos anos 1970, surgem monitores de alta resolução capazes de exibir interfaces gráficas. David Canfield Smith defendeu uma tese em 1975 que propunha pela primeira vez a utilização de ícones em interfaces gráficas. Inspirado nos ícones religiosos, Smith propôs que ícones poderiam ser tão abstratos quanto concretos, ou seja, eles seriam representações capazes de processamento ao mesmo tempo capazes de referir-se a uma experiência concreta que o usuário tenha tido. O exemplo que ele oferece é a linguagem de programação visual Pygmalion, que ofereceria uma série de diagramas interativos. Nesta imagem, temos diversos ícones. O mais concreto são as setas da estrutura if/else que se assemelha a uma bifurcação de estradas. Em 1973, Tim Mott e Larry Tessler desenvolveram a Office Schematic dentro do laboratório Xerox Parc, uma proposta que iria definir o paradigma de representação para interfaces gráficas. Mott estava pensando como aproveitar melhor o recurso da interface gráfica e percebeu que haviam metáforas físicas para representar ações intra-documentos, tal como o comando de copiar e colar. Porém, não haviam metáforas para ações inter-documentos. Foi então que, diante de um guardanapo num restaurante, ele teve a ideia de representar um escritório na interface gráfica, onde os documentos pudessem ser movidos de um lugar a outro. O Office Schematic ficou conhecido posteriormente como metáfora desktop. Trabalhando com Mott e Tessler, Smith desenhou a primeira linha de ícones do Xerox Alto (1974), o primeiro computador a implementar uma interface gráfica com a metáfora desktop. Estes ícones representavam arquivos que podiam ser movidos para diferentes mídias de armazenamento, impressoras e outros computadores. Diversos outros conceitos de interface gráfica já estavam ali presentes, tais como a barra de rolagem, os menus e a manipulação direta. O Xerox Star que sucedeu o Alto tinha a proposta de ir além de controlar a edição e impressão de documentos. A proposta era ser um computador multifuncional para a gestão de empresas. Quatro séries de ícones foram criadas e testadas com usuários para verificar quais faziam mais sentido. Na Xerox Parc já existia uma visão de que o usuário leigo em informática deveria ser priorizado no projeto. Infelizmente a Xerox não conseguiu compreender as inovações que surgiram no Parc e acabou assinando um acordo com a Apple para que Steve Jobs e sua equipe visitasse o laboratório e conhecesse tais inovações. Ao ver a interface gráfica, Jobs teve a certeza de que era isso que precisava para realizar o conceito de Computação Pessoal que movia a empresa. Os ícones adquiriram o status que tem hoje depois que a Apple contratou Susan Kare para desenhar a família de ícones do primeiro Macintosh, lançado em 1984. Esses ícones eram muito diferentes dos ícones do Xerox Star. Ao invés de representar apenas conceitos computacionais, alguns destes ícones representam ações e emoções humanas. O objetivo era mostrar que o computador poderia refletir as preferências e interesses do usuário, o que fica evidente no ícone do Mac com um sorriso. Diversos outros ícones representavam partes do corpo humano para enfatizar essa relação pessoal com o usuário. O próximo marco na história dos ícones só viria em 2007, quando a Apple lançava o iPhone. Esse smartphone não era o primeiro com tela touch screen, porém, era o primeiro a priorizar o design de ícones. O design de produto do iPhone é extremamente simples visando colocar em evidência a interface gráfica e os ícones coloridos que ela continha. Os ícones eram o produto, o que ficaria mais claro depois que a Apple lançou a App Store e a possibilidade de desenvolvedores de fora da Apple colocarem ícones no iPhone para permitir acesso a seus aplicativos. Na versão comemorativa de 10 anos de lançamento do primeiro iPhone, a Apple novamente inovou no design de ícones com o lançamento dos animojis, que representavam através de animações sincronizadas em tempo real as expressões faciais do usuário. Aqui a Apple realizou de maneira literal a ideia antiga de que o computador poderia ser um espelho do usuário. O iPhone X também eliminou a necessidade de botões físicos, tornando o produto uma grande tela para interfaces gráficas. A relevância dos ícones na história da Interação Humano Computador se deve à: a) Relação entre conceitos abstratos a experiências concretas b) Mnemônica (fácil memorizar e reconhecer) c) Localização rápida na tela d) Economia de espaço na tela e) Internacionalização f) Afeto emocional Ao longo de sua história, ícones foram padronizados em certos elementos constitutivos. A sua "anatomia" atual consiste em sete elementos: fundo (contexto onde ele aparece), figura (forma básica ou silhueta), borda (entre a figura e o fundo), cor predominante da figura, iluminação (proveniente do canto superior esquerdo), rótulo descritivo e uma ação (representação estática de um movimento). A anatomia do ícone tem impacto direto na memorização e reconhecimento do ícone, que acontecem em processos graduais, mesmo que muito rápidos. A memorização começa à partir da imagem complexa do ícone que fica na memória de curta duração. Com o passar do tempo, a memória deste ícone se torna mais difusa e apenas traços distintivos permanecem. Após muito tempo, a pessoa lembra de características gerais, tais como a forma da figura, sua cor predominante ou a localização na tela. Em alguns casos, o ícone é completamente esquecido, porém, quando ele é visto novamente, o processo de reconhecimento acontece mais rapidamente. Ao escanear a tela, a pessoa busca primeiramente as características gerais do ícone, tais como a cor predominante e só depois considera os seus traços distintivos. Devido às características desses dois processos, ícones devem ter silhuetas simples e poucas cores. A maior relevância do ícone não está, entretanto, associado aos processos de memória e de reconhecimento, mas sim no processo de significação. O ícone tem o potencial de estabelecer uma rica rede de associações que levam ao sentido do aplicativo. O ícone do Find My iPhone lembra um radar que, assim como diversos outras tecnologias militares, agora estão presentes no cotidiano de civis. Uma tecnologia militar conecta-se bem com os casos de uso do aplicativo: roubo e vigilância parental. Não por acaso, a Apple tem um segundo aplicativo com a mesma função de localização do aparelho, porém, o Find My Friends exige autorização do amigo para compartilhar a localização. Com o Find My iPhone, os pais podem saber onde os filhos estão a qualquer momento através da interface web do iCloud sem autorização dos filhos. Esse processo de significação é muito bem explicado pela Engenharia Semiótica, uma teoria de Interação Humano Computador criada pela pesquisadora Clarisse de Souza da PUC-Rio. Essa teoria é baseada em duas premissas: O computador é uma máquina capaz de processar signos e a interface com o usuário é um processo de comunicação baseado em signos. O conceito principal da Engenharia Semiótica é a metacomunicação, ou seja, a comunicação do designer explicando como o usuário pode se comunicar com o computador. A aplicação seria uma mensagem que o designer enviaria para o usuário expressando que soluções existem para suas necessidades. O usuário interpretaria os signos contidos nessa mensagem e realizaria suas atividades. A metacomunicação é unidirecional, pois uma vez que o aplicativo é codificado, o designer não pode mais mudar a sua mensagem. Um dos maiores insights da Engenharia Semiótica é a distinção entre dois tipos de metacomunicação: operacional e estratégica. Na metacomunicação operacional, a interface expressa como usar a aplicação. Este tipo de metacomunicação já recebeu muita atenção de outras teorias de IHC. O diferencial da Engenharia Semiótica é a ênfase na metacomunicação estratégica, que expressa por quê o usuário deve utilizar a aplicação. No exemplo do tour de entrada do aplicativo AirBnB a descrição se refere às características da experiência do usuário e não aos elementos da interface. Embora a Engenharia Semiótica não coloque nesses termos, eu compreendo que ela propõe que o designer atue como um tradutor entre duas linguagems: a linguagem de programação e a linguagem de interação. Enquanto a linguagem de programação serve para dar instruções para o computador, a linguagem de interação serve para dar instruções para o usuário. Devido à informalidade, a linguagem de interação é definida por todos os "falantes", está em constante evolução e ninguém sabe exatamente todas as possibilidades desta linguagem. Em contraste, a linguagem de programação é definida por um grupo pequeno de pessoas e se torna fixa, devido à necessidade de formalidade. A linguagem de programação expressa conceitos computacionais enquanto a linguagem de interação expressa diversos tipos de conceitos. A unidade básica da linguagem de interação é o padrão de interação (pattern). Como exemplo, temos o padrão "Puxe para atualizar", primeiro utilizado pelo aplicativo do Twitter que, ao mesmo tempo em que criava um novo padrão, quebrava o padrão de clicar no ícone home para atualizar o feed, uma vez que este que não era percebido pelos usuários. O padrão de "Puxe para atualizar" logo se espalhou por outros aplicativos e se tornou parte da linguagem da interação falada nos aplicativos móveis. Ícones são interpretados como parte de uma linguagem de interação, porém, eles não são meras palavras. Ícones são frases. É possível através de um método chamado análise da estrutura frasal decompor um ícone em suas partes constitutivas. O sujeito normalmente refere-se ao usuário, o verbo é a ação possível, o advérbio é um qualificativo da ação e o predicado é o objeto principal do ícone, qualificado por adjetivos. No caso do ícone Firefox Crystal vemos que o designer Everaldo Coelho qualificou a raposa do Firefox como um animal mágico que pode navegar a web tão rápido quanto o fogo. Assim como na linguagem falada, nem todas as frases são ditas por completo, pois há informações não-ditas e implícitas. No caso dos ícones padrão da iOS Toolbar e Navigation Bar, as frases possuem verbos sem predicados, pois estes se referem ao que está carregado na View atual. Por outro lado, os ícones padrão da iOS Tab Bar possuem o mesmo verbo implícito (ver) com diversos predicados. Os ícones não demonstram o que é possível fazer com os objetos, apenas sugerem o tipo de conteúdo. Já os ícones do Home Screen do iOS não seguem um padrão. Alguns possuem verbo e predicado (Mapas), enquanto outros possuem apenas um substantivo (Mail). Porém, todos possuem muitos adjetivos para qualificar a experiência proporcionada por cada aplicativo. Os qualificativos são marca registrada dos ícones da Apple. Quando se compõe uma série de ícones para um mesmo aplicativo, vale à pena definir um padrão consistente para as frases. Assim a linguagem de ícones contribui para o microbranding da marca. A linguagem de ícones da Spotify possui espessuras finas, curvas com mesma ângulação e preenchimento vazio. A consistência na linguagem de ícones não deve, entretanto, prejudicar a distinção entre as frases. Uma vez que ícones nem sempre são vistos com atenção, a silhueta da figura deve ser diferente mesmo que a figura seja parecida, de modo a facilitar o reconhecimento diante de formas similares. Este exemplo foi publicado por @MegDraws no Twitter. Até agora estamos discutindo as possibilidades que a forma oferece para a informação. Porém, a "mágica" dos ícones acontecem nos níveis de estrutura e de função, quando contribui para a interação e experiência. Há uma certa equivalência entre esses três níveis de possibilidades aos três níveis de análise da linguagem: sintática, semântica e pragmática. Iremos agora analisar ícones nos níveis semânticos e pragmáticos. A Engenharia Semiótica é baseada no conceito de signo de Charles Sanders Peirce, o filósofo que fundou a escola americana de semiótica. O conceito de signo é baseado numa tríade entre três elementos: o representamen (também chamado de representante), o objeto que ele representa e o interpretante (também conhecido como significado). Neste exemplo, o ícone de pasta representa dados no disco rígido, mas a interpretação deste para um usuário específico é o álbum de fotos, pois é nesta pasta que a pessoa guarda as fotos. Segundo Peirce, um signo nunca emerge isolado. Cada signo é significado em relação a outros signos e dá origem a novos signos num processo conhecido como semiose ilimitada. Neste exemplo, o signo de álbum de fotos lembra a pessoa do álbum impresso, ela sente vontade de imprimir algumas fotos e imagina que pode dar de presente para alguém aquele álbum. Na Engenharia Semiótica, a semiose não é ilimitada. Ela pode ser interrompida por um signo que não faz sentido, fenômeno conhecido como breakdown. Neste momento, o usuário fica perdido ou frustrado e desiste do que estava fazendo. Certa vez tentei imprimir um álbum de fotos que havia preparado no Fotos do Mac e fiquei surpreso negativamente ao descobrir que não havia como encomendá-lo impresso pela ausência do serviço no Brasil. O aplicativo poderia ter me dito isso antes de maneira mais clara. A Engenharia Semiótica identificou diferentes expressões comuns do usuário quando ocorre a interrupção da semiose (De Souza et al, 1999). Algumas dessas expressões podem indicar um problema sério de usabilidade (fundo vermelho), como por exemplo, quando o usuário faz algo errado e não percebe. Elas também podem indicar um crescimento da competência do usuário e a dispensa de ajuda (fundo verde). Vejamos dois exemplos de interrupções na semiose causadas por uma mensagem com ruídos ou desvios de interpretação. O Macintosh original não tinha botão de ejetar para o disquete. Os designers criaram uma associação de arrastar e soltar o ícone do disquete até o ícone da lixeira para ejetar o disco. Depois de muitas reclamações de usuários que não encontravam a função (Onde estou?), o ícone da lixeira passou a mudar para um ícone de ejetar sempre que um disco era arrastado. Mesmo com o representamen correto, muitos usuários ainda ficam com medo de apagar os dados do disquete, CD, DVD ou pendrive até hoje e preferem fazê-lo pelo botão de ejetar do finder (Obrigado, mas não). Na minha visão, a semiose é, na maior parte do tempo, interrompida pela falta de interesse ou de atenção. A pessoa simplesmente não quer aquilo que o signo está representando. O que mais interessa aos usuários não é como o ícone foi desenhado (sintática), nem o que ele representa computacionalmente (semântica), mas o que é possível fazer com ele (pragmática). Essa característica da Interação Humano Computador está sendo gradualmente compreendida através de teorias como a Engenharia Semiótica. Emojis são um exemplo popular de ícones que não representam conceitos computacionais. Ele não representa um espaço ou uma funcionalidade do computador, mas sim uma emoção ou intenção de comunicação do usuário. Ícones representam cada vez mais conceitos não-computacionais. Isso torna ícones cada vez mais sujeitos às contradições da sociedade, em particular, entre representação e realidade. Na última versão do iOS (11), a Apple incluiu a silhueta que parece de uma mulher no ícone da lista de contatos. Anteriormente, o ícone continha apenas uma figura com feições bastante masculinas. A questão contraditória que levou à Apple a incluir a silhueta é: porque mulheres não deveriam ser representadas se elas figuram na lista de contatos? Apesar da mudança, o déficit de representação da mulher ainda continua. Embora o signo seja uma estrutura de simples compreensão, a análise do signo permite ver sutilezas que não estão claras à primeira vista. Peirce propôs três tricotomias para analisar signos. A primeira tricotomia diz respeito ao representamen e ele mesmo. O qualisigno é uma relação de representação em que a qualidade do representamen fala por si. Neste exemplo de qualisigno, o ícone representa a qualidade de ser ícone, a "iconicidade". O sinsigno é uma relação de particularidade. O signo representa algo único, particular, tal como os trejeitos da expressão facial de uma pessoa. O legisigno é tal como uma Lei, algo inevitável. A representação do botão de desligar inequivocamente irá desligar o aparelho. A segunda tricotomia diz respeito à relação entre representamen e objeto. Quando o representamen é similar ao objeto, a relação é chamada tecnicamente de ícone. Note que no resto dessa apresentação eu não utilizei essa compreensão mais restrita de ícone. Prefiro utilizar o nome ícone também para índices e símbolos, que não são tipos de imagens mas tipos de relações. A relação de índice é uma causalidade, ou seja, o objeto causa uma modificação na representação ou vice-e-versa. No exemplo do calendário, a data atual modifica a forma do ícone. Já a relação de símbolo é completamente arbitrária e se justifica apenas pela convenção. O desenho + não tem nenhuma relação além da arbitrariedade com a operação matemática da soma, por exemplo. A terceira tricotomia serve para analisar as relações entre representamen e interpretante. Se o ícone representar uma possibilidade não muito clara, ele pode ser chamado de rema, tal como o ícone do microfone da Siri. O usuário não sabe se ela vai entender o que ele irá falar. No momento em que o usuário fala, aparece um outro ícone, um ícone dinâmico cuja forma se altera de acordo com o volume das ondas sonoras. Esse ícone é um fato. A Siri está lhe ouvindo, mas ainda não há certeza de que ela lhe entende. Você só consegue perceber isso nas respostas que a Siri dá, que não seria um ícone, mas seria uma relação de argumento. O argumento expressa uma relação de certeza entre o representamen e o interpretante. Embora as tricotomias sirvam à classificação de relações, elas não foram criadas meramente para classificar signos desse ou daquele tipo. As tricotomias servem para perceber as variações no processo de representação. Scott McCloud conseguiu representar isso magistralmente no triângulo que mostra o continuum entre realidade, significado e plano da figura. Os extremos desse triângulo corresponderiam ao ícone na esquerda (figura muito similar à realidade), ao qualisigno no topo (representamen representando a representação) e ao símbolo na direita (rosto simplificado). O signo pode transitar entre as categorias dependendo da situação em que ele emerge. Um estudo superficial sobre a Semiótica pode levar o designer a acreditar que ele pode garantir um interpretante a partir da manipulação do representamen. Isso, segundo a Semiótica não é possível, pois o objeto do signo tem caráter dinâmico. Ora o signo representa uma coisa, ora outra. Por esse motivo não há uma tricotomia sobre a relação entre representamen e objeto. O que pode ser feito é considerar os padrões de interação existentes, as particularidades do contexto e as possibilidades expressivas. No design de ícones, existem três práticas que consideram as relações das tricotomias peirceanas. A primeira prática é a definição de parâmetros de representação antes de conceber o signo. A primeira coisa que Susan Kare ao ser contratada pela Apple em 1982 para desenhar ícones foi comprar um caderno de rascunhos quadriculado. Desenhando nesse caderno, ela restringiu os representamens ao que seria possível com a tecnologia do pixel da interface gráfica. A segunda prática é a geração de alternativas para encontrar representamens potenciais do objeto. Tom Bigelajzen desenhou algumas alternativas para os ícones do player multimídia VLC antes de escolher a final. Isso ajudou-o a considerar qual representamen era mais adequado ao objeto (a funcionalidade de configuração do aplicativo). Para verificar a relação entre representamen e interpretante, é indicada a prática de testes com usuários. No exemplo acima, eu criei um sistema chamado Icon Sorting que mostrava um ícone a cada 13 segundos e perguntava ao usuário qual o rótulo mais apropriado. A quantidade de opções e o tempo curto forçava uma associação rápida e corriqueira, mais parecida com o contexto de uso. Os ícones que não tiveram associações foram descartados. Existem outras maneiras de testar ícones com usuários, por exemplo, através de entrevistas e diálogos presenciais. Apesar de tudo o que disse até agora, a melhor maneira de projetar um novo ícone, muitas vezes é não fazê-lo. Se existe um ícone que atingiu o status de símbolo para aquele objeto, é melhor utilizá-lo do que criar um novo. Existem diversas bibliotecas com milhares de ícones gratuitos para utilização. Na maior parte dos casos, é mais fácil adaptar um desses ícones do que criar um do zero. O desafio do design de ícones não é o desenho, mas sim a designação de sentido, que não é uma tarefa exata. Não é um processo exato porque mesmo os símbolos mais convencionais podem perder o sentido ao longo do tempo. Um exemplo contemporâneo é o ícone de salvar que, antigamente, referia-se à mídia de armazenamento principal (disquete de 3 e 1/2 polegadas). Hoje em dia, existem pessoas que nunca viram um disquete desse tipo mas que conseguem reconhecer o ícone de salvar em diferentes contextos. Porém, existem muitos aplicativos que já não estão mais utilizando este ícone para representar salvar ou porque não existem mais essa funcionalidade (os dados são salvos automaticamente em intervalos de tempo) ou porque existem dois tipos de salvar (salvar na nuvem e salvar no dispositivo). Qualquer signo estará sempre sujeito à contradição entre representação e realidade. O design de ícones reproduz e transforma essa contradição o tempo todo. Compreendê-la é mais interessante do que negá-la. Made with Keynote Extractor.Comente este post

Kevin Hoover, Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Duke University, joins co-hosts Scott Scheall, Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak, and Gerardo Serra. The discussion covers an array of topics, including the current state of macroeconomics, the need for a degree of pluralism in economic science, the relationship between Hoover's work in economics and philosophy, the economics of the original pragmatist philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce, and the tolerant attitude typically embraced by the international community of historians of economics. Smith and Marx Walk into a Bar is supported by a grant from the History of Economics Society: http://historyofeconomics.org

Charles Sanders Peirceさんのトライアッドモデルと【やさしい社会】との関連性について話しています。

Charles Sanders Peirceさんのトライアッドモデルと【やさしい社会】との関連性について話しています。

ポルトガルのリサイクル社会振りをご紹介。 沢山の本を眺めつつ、やはりすべては繋がっている、との認識を深める。 哲学。プラグマティズム。Charles Sanders Peirce

ポルトガルのリサイクル社会振りをご紹介。 沢山の本を眺めつつ、やはりすべては繋がっている、との認識を深める。 哲学。プラグマティズム。Charles Sanders Peirce

https://www.pensamientovisual.es/tipos-signos-graficos/ En este episodio veremos las diferencias entre distintos tipos de signos gráficos. Pero antes, recuerda visitar la web pensamientovisual.es para acceder gratis a la intranet formativa con el ABC del Pensamiento Visual, así como VER este episodio por escrito, y un resumen visual clarificador. Hoy te voy a presentar Tipos de signos gráficos: icono, indicio, símbolo y otros ¿conoces los distintos tipos de signos gráficos? ¿es lo mismo un icono, que un símbolo, indicio, pictograma, logograma, metáfora visual o ideografía? Clasificar los distintos signos gráficos que puedes usar en tus apuntes, para divulgar tus ideas o para resolver problemas no es una tarea fácil o al menos clara, y está sujeta a interpretaciones… como todo en la vida. ?? Después de ver diferentes conceptos para referirse a los distintos signos gráficos, y en muchas ocasiones con enfoques diferentes y contradictorios, he decidido intentar aclararme y exponerlo… …pero la verdad que no me ha sido fácil! A grandes rasgos y antes de entrar en detalle, podríamos decir que todo lo presentado aquí formará parte de un gran grupo denominado SIGNO. Un signo es una realidad perceptible por uno o varios sentidos humanos que remite a otra realidad que no está presente. Significar es expresar por signos. Además de esta definición, para poder clasificar los diferentes tipos de signos gráficos, hay que tener en cuenta que un SIGNO consta de un significante, un significado y un referente, produciéndose una relación inseparable entre ellos denominada significación: REFERENTE: el objeto al que nos referimos, tanto sea real o imaginario SIGNIFICANTE: lo que realmente percibimos del signo SIGNIFICADO: representación mental a partir del significante. Ejemplo: Campanas de una iglesia: Significado: anuncian que la Misa va a comenzar. Significante: las campanas de una iglesia. Referente: la iglesia. Para tratar de dar una clasificación básica de los diferentes tipos de signos gráficos, me basaré en la teoría de Charles Sanders Peirce, al ser una de las clasificaciones más conocidas e influyentes: INDICIO, ICONO y SÍMBOLO

In this episode, Cathy Legg talks about why Charles Sanders Peirce thought that existing was only one of three ways of being. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

An important theoretical underpinning of biosemiotics is the semiotic philosophy of American scientist and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) and his observation that ‘the universe is perfused with signs’. Semiotic biology was born from a similar insight, that living systems – cells, organisms, and ecologies – are not mechanical but are scaffolded by semiosis. Semiotic systems characterise life throughout. Sign relations are responsible for the efficacy of biological systems as much as they are for abstract human conceptual systems. All obey the same triadic Peircean semiotic logic. As Norbert Wiener long ago implied about information in cybernetic systems, such informational, or in living things semiotic, relations require material bearers (codes and channels), but are, themselves, immaterial. All sign relations are manifested in von Uexküllian semiotic species umwelten, and while these (including the human) are thus necessarily incomplete models of reality (there being, as Thomas Nagel has noted, ‘no view from nowhere’), sign relations nonetheless form a semiotic bridge between mind and nature, subject and object, and intentional concept and reality. This is the case for every living organism: semiotic relations bridge the supposed gap between mind and body, culture and nature, and idealism and realism. Wendy Wheeler is Professor Emeritus of English Literature and Cultural Inquiry at London Metropolitan University. She is also a Visiting Professor at Goldsmiths and RMIT in Melbourne. In 2014, she gave the first annual University of Tartu Jakob von Uexküll Lecture to the European Association for the Study of Literature, Culture and the Environment in Estonia. She is the author of four books, two on biosemiotics, and many essays on the same topic in journals and edited collections. She is on the editorial boards of several journals – New Formations, Green Letters, Cybernetics and Human Knowing, and Biosemiotics – and is currently completing her fifth monograph The Flame and Its Shadow: Reflections on Nature and Culture from a Biosemiotic Perspective.

Tripp chats with Leon Niemoczynski about a philosophical approach to sacred nature.  Leon Niemoczynski teaches in the Departments of Philosophy and Theology at Immaculata University near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and he is also currently a Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at East Stroudsburg University, East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Dr. Niemoczynski's research focuses on the philosophy of nature, where he is especially interested in issues pertaining to philosophical naturalism, logic and metaphysics, aesthetics, German idealism, philosophical ecology, animal ethics, environmental philosophy, and environmental philosophy's relationship to the philosophy of religion. He is the author/co-editor of Animal Experience: Consciousness and Emotions in the Natural World (Open Humanities Press, 2014), A Philosophy of Sacred Nature: Prospects for Ecstatic Naturalism (Lexington Books, 2014) and as sole author, Charles Sanders Peirce and a Religious Metaphysics of Nature (Lexington Books, 2011). He has published in numerous anthologies and journals including Process Studies, The Review of Metaphysics, The American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, and The Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature, and Culture, to name but just a few. His most recent book chapter covered the philosophy of Quentin Meillassoux and the radical theology of John D. Caputo, which was published in The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion (Indiana University Press, 2014). Leon is currently working on his newest book tentatively titled Speculative Naturalism: An Ecological Metaphysics which draws from the metaphysics and theological panentheistic-process perspectives of C.S. Peirce and Alfred North Whitehead, Gilles Deleuze, Friedrich Schelling, G.W.F. Hegel, and Quentin Meillassoux. He resides in the Pocono Mountains of northeastern Pennsylvania with his wife Nalina. Follow the podcast, drop a review, send feedback/questions or become a member of the HBC Community. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charles Sanders Peirce was the founder of the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. He is also the proponent of a distinctive variety of pragmatism that has at its core a logical rule that has come to be known as “the pragmatic maxim.” According to this maxim, the meaning of a concept or a proposition is ultimately to be defined in terms of the “sensible” and “practical” effects it would produce in the course of experimental action. That is, of course, a crude articulation. But, according to Peirce, the view of meaning that the maxim articulates has vast philosophical implications. Peirce’s pragmatism is at once anti-skeptical, fallibilist, verificationist, inferentialist, and realist. Indeed, that looks like a motley crowd of philosophical commitments. How might they be made to hang together? In his new book, The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism (Oxford University Press, 2012), Christopher Hookway explores the complexities of Peirce’s philosophy. With chapters devoted to topics ranging from Peirce’s fallibilism, his philosophy of language, his views on mathematics, his rejection of psychologism, and his theory of abduction, Hookway presents Peircean pragmatism as a formidable and strikingly contemporary philosophy. Hookway’s book will be of great interest to anyone interested in pragmatism and the history of 20th-century philosophy, but it also has much to offer to those working on current debates in fields like epistemology, philosophy of language, and logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charles Sanders Peirce was the founder of the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. He is also the proponent of a distinctive variety of pragmatism that has at its core a logical rule that has come to be known as “the pragmatic maxim.” According to this maxim, the meaning of a concept or a proposition is ultimately to be defined in terms of the “sensible” and “practical” effects it would produce in the course of experimental action. That is, of course, a crude articulation. But, according to Peirce, the view of meaning that the maxim articulates has vast philosophical implications. Peirce’s pragmatism is at once anti-skeptical, fallibilist, verificationist, inferentialist, and realist. Indeed, that looks like a motley crowd of philosophical commitments. How might they be made to hang together? In his new book, The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism (Oxford University Press, 2012), Christopher Hookway explores the complexities of Peirce’s philosophy. With chapters devoted to topics ranging from Peirce’s fallibilism, his philosophy of language, his views on mathematics, his rejection of psychologism, and his theory of abduction, Hookway presents Peircean pragmatism as a formidable and strikingly contemporary philosophy. Hookway’s book will be of great interest to anyone interested in pragmatism and the history of 20th-century philosophy, but it also has much to offer to those working on current debates in fields like epistemology, philosophy of language, and logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charles Sanders Peirce was the founder of the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. He is also the proponent of a distinctive variety of pragmatism that has at its core a logical rule that has come to be known as “the pragmatic maxim.” According to this maxim, the meaning of a concept or a proposition is ultimately to be defined in terms of the “sensible” and “practical” effects it would produce in the course of experimental action. That is, of course, a crude articulation. But, according to Peirce, the view of meaning that the maxim articulates has vast philosophical implications. Peirce’s pragmatism is at once anti-skeptical, fallibilist, verificationist, inferentialist, and realist. Indeed, that looks like a motley crowd of philosophical commitments. How might they be made to hang together? In his new book, The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism (Oxford University Press, 2012), Christopher Hookway explores the complexities of Peirce’s philosophy. With chapters devoted to topics ranging from Peirce’s fallibilism, his philosophy of language, his views on mathematics, his rejection of psychologism, and his theory of abduction, Hookway presents Peircean pragmatism as a formidable and strikingly contemporary philosophy. Hookway’s book will be of great interest to anyone interested in pragmatism and the history of 20th-century philosophy, but it also has much to offer to those working on current debates in fields like epistemology, philosophy of language, and logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charles Sanders Peirce was the founder of the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. He is also the proponent of a distinctive variety of pragmatism that has at its core a logical rule that has come to be known as “the pragmatic maxim.” According to this maxim, the meaning of a concept or a proposition is ultimately to be defined in terms of the “sensible” and “practical” effects it would produce in the course of experimental action. That is, of course, a crude articulation. But, according to Peirce, the view of meaning that the maxim articulates has vast philosophical implications. Peirce's pragmatism is at once anti-skeptical, fallibilist, verificationist, inferentialist, and realist. Indeed, that looks like a motley crowd of philosophical commitments. How might they be made to hang together? In his new book, The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism (Oxford University Press, 2012), Christopher Hookway explores the complexities of Peirce's philosophy. With chapters devoted to topics ranging from Peirce's fallibilism, his philosophy of language, his views on mathematics, his rejection of psychologism, and his theory of abduction, Hookway presents Peircean pragmatism as a formidable and strikingly contemporary philosophy. Hookway's book will be of great interest to anyone interested in pragmatism and the history of 20th-century philosophy, but it also has much to offer to those working on current debates in fields like epistemology, philosophy of language, and logic.

Charles Sanders Peirce was the founder of the philosophical tradition known as pragmatism. He is also the proponent of a distinctive variety of pragmatism that has at its core a logical rule that has come to be known as “the pragmatic maxim.” According to this maxim, the meaning of a concept or a proposition is ultimately to be defined in terms of the “sensible” and “practical” effects it would produce in the course of experimental action. That is, of course, a crude articulation. But, according to Peirce, the view of meaning that the maxim articulates has vast philosophical implications. Peirce’s pragmatism is at once anti-skeptical, fallibilist, verificationist, inferentialist, and realist. Indeed, that looks like a motley crowd of philosophical commitments. How might they be made to hang together? In his new book, The Pragmatic Maxim: Essays on Peirce and Pragmatism (Oxford University Press, 2012), Christopher Hookway explores the complexities of Peirce’s philosophy. With chapters devoted to topics ranging from Peirce’s fallibilism, his philosophy of language, his views on mathematics, his rejection of psychologism, and his theory of abduction, Hookway presents Peircean pragmatism as a formidable and strikingly contemporary philosophy. Hookway’s book will be of great interest to anyone interested in pragmatism and the history of 20th-century philosophy, but it also has much to offer to those working on current debates in fields like epistemology, philosophy of language, and logic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pragmatism is American’s home-grown philosophy, but it is not widely understood. This partly is due to the fact that pragmatism emerged out of deep philosophical disputes among its earliest proponents: Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although it is agreed that they are the founders of Pragmatism, they also held opposing views about meaning, truth, reality, and value. A further complication emerges in that it is widely believed that Pragmatism was purged from the philosophical mainstream and rendered dormant sometime around 1950, and then recovered only in the 1980s by Richard Rorty. In her new book, The American Pragmatists (Oxford University Press, 2013), Cheryl Misak presents a nuanced analysis of the origins, development, and prospects of Pragmatism. She shows that Pragmatism has always come in a variety of flavors, ranging from the highly objectivist views of Peirce and C. I. Lewis to the more subjectivist commitments of James and Richard Rorty. More importantly, Misak demonstrates that Pragmatism has been a constantly evolving philosophical movement that has consistently shaped the landscape of English-language philosophy. On Misak’s account, Pragmatism is the philosophical thread that runs through the work of the most influential philosophers of the past century. Her book will be of interest to anyone with interest in Pragmatism or twentieth-century philosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pragmatism is American's home-grown philosophy, but it is not widely understood. This partly is due to the fact that pragmatism emerged out of deep philosophical disputes among its earliest proponents: Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although it is agreed that they are the founders of Pragmatism, they also held opposing views about meaning, truth, reality, and value. A further complication emerges in that it is widely believed that Pragmatism was purged from the philosophical mainstream and rendered dormant sometime around 1950, and then recovered only in the 1980s by Richard Rorty. In her new book, The American Pragmatists (Oxford University Press, 2013), Cheryl Misak presents a nuanced analysis of the origins, development, and prospects of Pragmatism. She shows that Pragmatism has always come in a variety of flavors, ranging from the highly objectivist views of Peirce and C. I. Lewis to the more subjectivist commitments of James and Richard Rorty. More importantly, Misak demonstrates that Pragmatism has been a constantly evolving philosophical movement that has consistently shaped the landscape of English-language philosophy. On Misak's account, Pragmatism is the philosophical thread that runs through the work of the most influential philosophers of the past century. Her book will be of interest to anyone with interest in Pragmatism or twentieth-century philosophy.

Pragmatism is American’s home-grown philosophy, but it is not widely understood. This partly is due to the fact that pragmatism emerged out of deep philosophical disputes among its earliest proponents: Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although it is agreed that they are the founders of Pragmatism, they also held opposing views about meaning, truth, reality, and value. A further complication emerges in that it is widely believed that Pragmatism was purged from the philosophical mainstream and rendered dormant sometime around 1950, and then recovered only in the 1980s by Richard Rorty. In her new book, The American Pragmatists (Oxford University Press, 2013), Cheryl Misak presents a nuanced analysis of the origins, development, and prospects of Pragmatism. She shows that Pragmatism has always come in a variety of flavors, ranging from the highly objectivist views of Peirce and C. I. Lewis to the more subjectivist commitments of James and Richard Rorty. More importantly, Misak demonstrates that Pragmatism has been a constantly evolving philosophical movement that has consistently shaped the landscape of English-language philosophy. On Misak’s account, Pragmatism is the philosophical thread that runs through the work of the most influential philosophers of the past century. Her book will be of interest to anyone with interest in Pragmatism or twentieth-century philosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pragmatism is American’s home-grown philosophy, but it is not widely understood. This partly is due to the fact that pragmatism emerged out of deep philosophical disputes among its earliest proponents: Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although it is agreed that they are the founders of Pragmatism, they also held opposing views about meaning, truth, reality, and value. A further complication emerges in that it is widely believed that Pragmatism was purged from the philosophical mainstream and rendered dormant sometime around 1950, and then recovered only in the 1980s by Richard Rorty. In her new book, The American Pragmatists (Oxford University Press, 2013), Cheryl Misak presents a nuanced analysis of the origins, development, and prospects of Pragmatism. She shows that Pragmatism has always come in a variety of flavors, ranging from the highly objectivist views of Peirce and C. I. Lewis to the more subjectivist commitments of James and Richard Rorty. More importantly, Misak demonstrates that Pragmatism has been a constantly evolving philosophical movement that has consistently shaped the landscape of English-language philosophy. On Misak’s account, Pragmatism is the philosophical thread that runs through the work of the most influential philosophers of the past century. Her book will be of interest to anyone with interest in Pragmatism or twentieth-century philosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pragmatism is American’s home-grown philosophy, but it is not widely understood. This partly is due to the fact that pragmatism emerged out of deep philosophical disputes among its earliest proponents: Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although it is agreed that they are the founders of Pragmatism, they also held opposing views about meaning, truth, reality, and value. A further complication emerges in that it is widely believed that Pragmatism was purged from the philosophical mainstream and rendered dormant sometime around 1950, and then recovered only in the 1980s by Richard Rorty. In her new book, The American Pragmatists (Oxford University Press, 2013), Cheryl Misak presents a nuanced analysis of the origins, development, and prospects of Pragmatism. She shows that Pragmatism has always come in a variety of flavors, ranging from the highly objectivist views of Peirce and C. I. Lewis to the more subjectivist commitments of James and Richard Rorty. More importantly, Misak demonstrates that Pragmatism has been a constantly evolving philosophical movement that has consistently shaped the landscape of English-language philosophy. On Misak’s account, Pragmatism is the philosophical thread that runs through the work of the most influential philosophers of the past century. Her book will be of interest to anyone with interest in Pragmatism or twentieth-century philosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Pragmatism (1907) by William James and "The Fixation of Belief" (1877) and "How to Make Our Ideas Clear" (1878) by Charles Sanders Peirce.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the American philosophy of pragmatism. A pragmatist "turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad apriori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power". A quote from William James' 1907 treatise Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. William James, along with John Dewey and Charles Sanders Peirce, was the founder of an American philosophical movement which flowered during the last thirty years of the nineteenth century and the first twenty years of the 20th century. It purported that knowledge is only meaningful when coupled with action. Nothing is true or false - it either works or it doesn't. It was a philosophy which was deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world he inhabited. In essence, practical application was all. But how did Pragmatism harness the huge scientific leap forward that had come with Charles Darwin's ideas on evolution? And how did this dynamic new philosophy challenge the doubts expressed by the Sceptics about the nature and extent of knowledge? Did Pragmatism influence the economic and political ascendancy of America in the early 20th century? And did it also pave the way for the contemporary preoccupation with post-modernism? With A C Grayling, Professor of Applied Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and a Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford; Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine; Miranda Fricker, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the American philosophy of pragmatism. A pragmatist "turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad apriori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power". A quote from William James' 1907 treatise Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. William James, along with John Dewey and Charles Sanders Peirce, was the founder of an American philosophical movement which flowered during the last thirty years of the nineteenth century and the first twenty years of the 20th century. It purported that knowledge is only meaningful when coupled with action. Nothing is true or false - it either works or it doesn't. It was a philosophy which was deeply embedded in the reality of life, concerned firstly with the individual's direct experience of the world he inhabited. In essence, practical application was all. But how did Pragmatism harness the huge scientific leap forward that had come with Charles Darwin's ideas on evolution? And how did this dynamic new philosophy challenge the doubts expressed by the Sceptics about the nature and extent of knowledge? Did Pragmatism influence the economic and political ascendancy of America in the early 20th century? And did it also pave the way for the contemporary preoccupation with post-modernism? With A C Grayling, Professor of Applied Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London and a Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford; Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosophers' Magazine; Miranda Fricker, Lecturer in Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London.