A child hears it said that the stove is hot.  But it is not, he says; and, indeed, that central body is not touching it, and only what that touches is hot or cold.  But he touches it, and finds the testimony confirmed in a striking way.  Thus, he becomes aware of ignorance, and it is necessary to suppose a self in which this ignorance can inhere.  …

In short, error appears, and it can be explained only by supposing a self which is fallible.

Ignorance and error are all that distinguish our private selves from the absolute ego of pure apperception.

— Charles S. Peirce • “Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For Man
This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Ego, Error, Ignorance, Inquiry, Peirce, References, Selfhood, Semiotics, Sources and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Ouch❢

  1. As an aside, I had to go to IEP to confirm my understanding, but Royce went so far as to argue that the possibility of error is itself indicative of the necessity of an infinite mind:

    In 1885, he published his first major philosophical work, The Religious Aspect of Philosophy, proposing the idea that in order for our ordinary concepts of truth and error to have meaning, there must be an actual infinite mind, an “Absolute Knower,” who encompasses the totality of actual truths and possible errors.

    (Also, in his later works, Royce is very explicit about his debt to Peirce, especially around the idea of a “community of inquirers,” which became the foundation for Royce’s concept of the “Beloved Community.”)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.