ハイエクの暗黙知理解について : コメントに対する返信

この記事は、私の過去の記事「設計主義のなにが問題なのか？ ハイエクの知識論」に対して、匿名の方から寄せられたコメントに対する返事です。文章量が多くなってしまったので、別箇の記事として投稿することにしました。

匿名様のコメントは以下の通り：

　(2) その知識の大部分は「暗黙知」(tacit knowledge)であり、言語化・分節化できない。

　のところですが、この暗黙知解釈は、野中郁二郎さんの解釈ですが、間違っていますよ。ハイエク自身は、ポラニーについて、また、暗黙知については言及していないでしょ。ハイエクに添って、解説してほしいです。
　 野中解釈は、暗黙知と明示知で、暗黙知なるものを実体化していますが、ポラニーが言ったのは、知るということ（知識が身につく）のプロセスにおいて、暗黙 の次元がある、ということです。暗黙知は、tacit knowingですから、knowingは動名詞です。暗黙の（語れない、分からない）作動なしに、知るということはない、といったのです。
　それから、
(3) 価格情報は、これら分散的・暗黙的な知識を集約的に表現する「指標」である。価格情報は知識の集約の結果であると同時に、新たな知識を形成する原因でもある。

　が省略されていますが、既存の経済学との対峙という意味では、これが重要ですね。できれば、説明していただきたいです。

以下、これに対する私の返信です。

---

コメントありがとうございます。仰る通り、この記事の内容は杜撰です。私が二年前に書いたものですが、今だったらこんな風に書きません。

まず、ハイエクの暗黙知理解について。私は、野中郁二郎氏を存じ上げませんが、どこかで見聞した通俗的な解釈を（それこそ暗黙的に）流用してしまったものと思われます。仰る通り、ハイエクに関してはこの記事の説明は的外れです。しかし、ハイエクがポランニーや暗黙知に言及していない、というのも誤解です。例えば論文「ルール、知覚、理解可能性」の中でポランニーの暗黙知理論が引かれています（Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics p.44）。

ただ、ハイエクの暗黙知理解とポランニーの暗黙知理解は大きく異なります。ポランニーにとっては、（その主著のタイトル『個人的知識』が示しているように）暗黙知はあくまで「個人」のものです。なお、少々脱線しますがポランニーにとって暗黙知は実体ではなく動名詞であるという貴方の指摘に関して、一点注意を促したいと思います。確かにポランニーは専らtacit knowingという言い方をしますが、彼はThe Tacit Dimensionの冒頭で次のように断っています："I shall always speak of 'knowing,' therefore, to cover both practical and theoretical knowledge" (p.7)。つまり実践的と理論的双方の「知識」を包括的に指す言葉としてknowingを使用する、ということです。ポランニーの主眼が、知る行為の結果である知識よりも知る行為そのものに置かれていることは間違いないですが、必ずしも前者を排除しているわけではないでしょう。こうした、暗黙知の実体化を排除する見方はおそらく松岡正剛氏の解釈から来ているのだと推測しますが、この見方はポランニーの真意に沿うものではないと思います。松岡氏はパン生地をこねる職人の技能は暗黙知ではないと言い切っていますが、ポランニーははっきりと診断医（The Tacit Dimension pp.6-7）やピアニスト（同 p.18）の技能を暗黙知の例として挙げています。

では、ハイエクの場合はどうでしょう。ハイエクにとって暗黙的なのは知覚や行為を統御する「ルール」です。ここで重要なのは、（明示的）「知識」を保持しているのは個人であるが、「ルール」を保持しているのは個人ではない、という点です。ハイエクにとって知覚ルールや行為ルールは、複雑な環境に対して適切に振る舞う必要性から、長い年月をかけて進化してきたものです。こうしたルールは、進化の遅い段階で一部が成文法といった形で明文化されることはあっても、その本質においては暗黙的なもので、人間はこうしたルールに従うことによって、彼が（明示的に）知っている以上のことを知ることができる、とハイエクは述べています。言い換えれば、一人ひとりの人間は自分の周囲の限られた領域の事柄以外に関しては無知であるにも関わらず、こうした暗黙的なルールに従うことによって、彼は知らず知らずのうちに、彼の認識可能な範囲を超えた遠い場所や遠い過去の事柄に関する知識を有効に活用することができる、というわけです。これが可能なのは、（繰り返しになりますが）こうした認識可能な範囲を超えた知識の存在形態が「ルール」に他ならないからです。ハイエクのこうしたルール概念については、「ルール、知覚、理解可能性」（Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics pp.43-65）、「行為ルール・システムの進化に関するノート」（同 pp.66-81）、および「抽象的なるものの先行性」（New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas pp.35-49）が参考になります。

したがって、ハイエクにとって、「暗黙知を明示化できない」という前提から直接「集産主義は不可能」という結論が導かれるわけではありません（だからこそ私が件の記事に載せた説明は的外れなんです）。ハイエクの議論を正しく図式化すれば、「文明の複雑化に伴って人間が暗黙的なルールに頼る度合いが増加する」→「一人ひとりの人間の認識可能な範囲がますます狭くなる」→「こうした大きな社会においては、分散した知識を一箇所に集めることができない（集産主義が不可能）」という風になると思われます。つまり、集産主義に対するハイエクの批判の要点は、明示化できない知識をむりやり明示化しようとしている、といったことではなく、あくまで知識の分散です。『自由の条件』の第二章がこの議論を分かりやすく表していると思うので、二節だけ引いておきます（原文ですみません、手元に翻訳はないのです）：

While the growth of our knowledge of nature constantly discloses new realms of ignorance, the increasing complexity of the civilization which this knowledge enables us to build presents new obstacles to the intellectual comprehension of the world around us. The more men know, the smaller the share of all that knowledge becomes that any one mind can absorb. The more civilized we become, the more relatively ignorant must each individual be of the facts on which the working of his civilization depends. The very division of knowledge increases the necessary ignorance of the individual of most of this knowledge. (The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition p.78)

We have now reached the point at which the main contention of this chapter will be readily intelligible. It is that the case for individual freedom rests chiefly on the recognition of the inevitable ignorance of all of us concerning a great many of the factors on which the achievement of our ends and welfare depends. (The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition p.80) 

また、"The Epistemological Argument Against Socialism: A Wittgensteinian Critique of Hayek and Giddens"という研究の中で、Nigel Pleasantsがまさにこの点においてハイエクを誤解している（ハイエクの暗黙知概念をルールではなく個人が保有するものと考えている）ために、かえって非常に参考になります。私自身、この論文を読んで自分の解釈の誤りに気付かされました。お勧めしておきます。

最後に、第三のテーゼ「価格情報は、これら分散的・暗黙的な知識を集約的に表現する『指標』である。価格情報は知識の集約の結果であると同時に、新たな知識を形成する原因でもある」について。これも大分杜撰な書き方をしてしまいました。私は経済学の知識に乏しいので、残念ながら大して有意義なことは述べられないです。これを書いたとき私の念頭にあったのは、塩沢由典氏の「ミクロ・マクロ・ループ」という概念だったと思います。つまり、経済現象のミクロなレベルにおける振る舞い（行為主体の経済活動）と、マクロなレベルにおける振る舞い（様々な慣習的・制度的構造の出現）は因果的にループしている、という考えです。価格システムも大局的なレベルにおける制度構造の一つということで、「価格情報は知識の集約の結果であると同時に、新たな知識を形成する原因でもある」という風に書いたんだと思います。このミクロ・マクロ・ループの考えが、新古典派経済学の方法論的個人主義（ただしオーストリア学派の方法論的個人主義とは異なる、狭い意味でのそれ）に対する批判の基礎になります。しかし、これはかなり大雑把な物言いです。私の見解に耳を傾けるより、塩沢由典『複雑さの帰結』（ミクロ・マクロ・ループが出てくるのは確か第三章だったと思います）を読まれた方が遥かに有益と思われます。

科学社会学と相対主義

科学社会学自体は非常に興味深いテーマを扱っているものの、「科学の客観性に対して疑問を投げかける」といったような動機で為されることが多いために、そうしたイデオロギーを共有できない私のような人間にとって、気持ち良く（不快感なしに）読める文献を探すのが難しい分野でもある。研究者たるもの、賛同できない学説に対しても淡々と、虚心坦懐に向き合うべし、と言われるかもしれないが、現実的な問題として、当該分野の学習に非本来的かつ不要な負荷がかかってしまう。唐揚げにレモンを勝手にかけないで欲しいのである。[1]

科学社会学周辺の論者が何らかの形の相対主義に走りやすいのは、科学活動が様々な制度的要素に規定されているという「形式」の側面にばかり目を奪われて、科学の「内容」を見ようとしないからだと思われる。一般的に言って、ある現象のメタ・レベルからの特徴付けは、グラウンド・レベルにおける当該現象の理解可能性を損なってはならない。科学の内容を考量に入れれば、それは相対主義的解釈（社会構築主義など）とは相容れないことが分かるはずである。いわば、内容が形式を内側から破壊してしまうのである。さらに、科学社会学自身も科学の一つの分野であるから、科学的知識の妥当性を社会的文脈に対して相対化するというメタ視点からの条件付けは、その妥当性が相対化されるべき当の知識の妥当性を前提してしまっており、結局自己論駁に陥っている。

相対主義的解釈がこうした誤謬を犯すのは、発見の文脈と妥当性の文脈を混同しているからだと思われる。ただしここでいう「発見の文脈」と「妥当性の文脈」の区別は、論理実証主義者がよく持ち出す、context of discoveryとcontext of justificationの区別とは少々異なる。[2] 論理実証主義の発見／正当化の区別は、科学的探究に関する独自の理論を前提としている。すなわち、科学的探究にははっきりと同定できる「発見」のプロセスと「正当化」のプロセスがあり、前者には論理的・形式的に分析可能な構造はないが後者にはある、という理論である。こうした理論は、Thomas KuhnやN. R. Hansonら「新しい科学哲学」の興隆とともに廃れてしまった。しかし私の言う発見／妥当性の区別は、単なる抽象的な視点の違いであって、科学的探究のプロセスに関する独自の理論を含意しない。私の言う発見／妥当性の区別は、ある発見や理論について問われている問いの違いに過ぎない。つまり、「この理論はいかにして発見されたか」という事実に関する問いと、「この理論は正しいか」という評価的な問いとの間の区別である。「発見の文脈」と「妥当性の文脈」の区別にこれ以上の実質を持ち込む必要はない（「妥当性の文脈」と言い換えたのは、論理実証主義が想定する狭い意味での「正当化の文脈」から差別化するためである）。

さて、この区別に照らせば、相対主義の主張に反して、科学活動が制度的要素に規定されていることは、科学的知識が客観的妥当性を有さないことを意味しない。事実的言明である前者から評価的言明である後者を導出することは、二つの異なる問いの混同に基づいている。私はむしろ、科学活動が多分に社会的・慣習的要素を含んでいるにも関わらずそれが可能であるという事実に、一種の神秘を見る。科学共同体の伝統を内在化した個人が、精神の自由な創造によって編み出した知が普遍性を持ち得るという一見パラドクシカルな事実に、自然と理性の神秘的な調和を見ることも十分可能であろう。

---

[1] もっとも、唐揚げに関しては私はレモンをかけたい派であるが。

[2] cf. Hoyningen-Huene, Paul, "Context of Discovery Versus Context of Justification and Thomas Kuhn" in Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, eds. Jutta Schickore and Friedrich Steinle. Springer, 2006.

【メモ】 リバタリアニズムの人間観―ヴィルヘルム・フォン・フンボルトに見るドイツ的教養の法哲学的展開 （吉永圭）

【序章　 法哲学の厳密性を確保する法思想史方法論と現代福祉国家の問題】

「リバタリアンは人間の完全性への憧憬を持ち合わせていないため、近代法がただ強い個人を想定しているのとは異なり人間は不完全なものであり理性には限界があるということを強く意識するがゆえにあえて無色透明な人間像を採用しているのではないだろうか。つまり、リバタリアンが経済力・交渉力の格差を考慮に入れない無色透明な人間像を前提とするのは、法が法主体の多様性を把握することは不可能だという一種の諦観に基づいているからだと思われる」（橋本祐子「リバタリアニズムの法理論」p.67）
→　こうしたリバタリアニズムを「確固たる人間観なきリバタリアニズム」と呼ぶことにする

人間をあるがままの自然状態の中に放置すると想定する。すると、人間はハートが指摘したような弱さ故、自然と強制力を持った装置を熱望するのではないか。……リバタリアニズムが個人の生活への国家介入を拒否するならば、そこには何等かの目的意識から構成された人間観が必要なのではないか。あるいは確固たる人間観なきリバタリアニズムは、自らは人間のあり方から不自然でない形で最小国家論を導いたかのように装うが、実はある一定の人間観を密輸入して自己の理論を組み立てているのではないか。(p.33)

【第一章　一八世紀後半ドイツの状況】

カントにとって重要なのは立法権と行政権の分離であり、行政権は元首に委ねられる。この元首とは、カントの時代においては国王である。立法においては代議制のみが採り得る道としながらも、執行権を掌握するという形で国王の君臨を許すことから、カントが少なくとも現代的な意味での民主制を支持しなかったと結論して良い。(p.99)

「民主主義のために戦ったのちの自由主義的教義とは異なり、初期の自由主義は通常、統治の最善の形式に関して慎重に言明を避け続けた。万民の最大限の自由を保障する政体である限りは、君主制でも、貴族政でも、民主制でも良かったのである。」(Frederick C. Beiser, The Early Political Writings of the German Romantics p.xxiii)

【第三章　フンボルトの前期思想】

「人間の真の目的は、——変わりやすい傾向ではなく、いつまでも変わらない理性によって示されるものであるが——人間の持つ諸力を最高にしかも最も調和のとれた一つの全体へと陶冶すること（Bildung）である。この陶冶の為に自由は、第一の不可欠な条件である」（『国家活動の限界を決定するための試論』）

「彼［フンボルト］の自由の概念は彼の文化の概念と密接に繋がっている。彼にとって自由とは、人間の諸力の発展と、それゆえ文化の発展の不可欠の基礎を形成する、不定で多様な活動の可能性を意味する」（Reinhold Aris, History of Political Thought in Germany from 1789 to 1815 p.147）。つまり、フンボルトの自由はそれ自体が価値を持つのではなく、最終的に己の諸力を文化形成に資するように導くための概念なのである。ここに政治参加への自由、といった積極的自由の概念は見られない。フンボルトの自由は、消極的自由の範囲を出ない。(p.142)

「われわれの存在に関する究極課題とは、次のようなものである。われわれの人格の中に、われわれの生前と死後を問わず、われわれが後に残す生き生きとした活動の痕跡によって、人間性（Menschheit）の概念に対して出来るだけ多くの内容を与えることである。このような課題を解決するためには、われわれの自我を世界と結び付けて、最も普遍的で、最も活発な、最も自由な相互作用を保つほかになす術はない。このことだけが、人間の認識のあらゆる部門の取り扱いを評価するための、真の尺度とならなければならない」 （『人間形成と言語』pp.68-69）

シュプランガーによる、フンボルトの人間性理念の説明：「個性」（Individualität）が諸力の「全面性」（Allseitigkeit）・「普遍性」（Universalität）を通じて自らを「全体性」（Totalität）へと形成していく。

ここで注意すべきは、フンボルトが社会集団あるいは社会関係というものを想定していたとしても、それは専ら個人という存在に対する影響に関する限りで彼の関心を引いたということだ。我々は社会集団（共同体）がフンボルトによって言及されているからといって、そこに政治的組織といった含意を読み取ることはできないのである。(pp.145-146)

フンボルトの哲学にはライプニッツの予定調和的世界観がある（個人に可能な限り自由を認めることが全体にとっても良い）。しかし社会における全体の秩序は個人の完成への努力に比べてあくまで副次的な問題。(p.147)

「後の自由主義とは異なり、彼［フンボルト］は民主制の擁護者ではなかった。彼の視野においては、容易く下層民の暴走に転じ得る民主制よりも独裁制や貴族政の方が自由を保障し得る。」
Frederick C. Beiser, Enlightenment, Revolution, and Romanticism p.111)
→　モンテスキュー、ルソー、ヴィーラント、そしてカントも、小さな共同体以外で民主制が現実になることを疑っている。

フンボルトにとって民主制採用を阻む障害は「無教養な民衆」である。この層が政治を掌握すれば、暴発し、専制あるいは無秩序になるという懸念があったのだろう。これは、フランス革命直後のパリを視察したフンボルト自身の経験が教えるところであったと推測される。(p.161)
→　教養を身に付けていない者が政治に口を出せば、己の利益のために政治を利用し、他者（および自身）の陶冶を妨げることになる。

フンボルトには政治的討議で自己を練磨していくという発想は見られない。(p.162)

【第四章　フンボルト国家論における人間観の問題】

フンボルトの教育論にデヴィッド・ソーキンは、新人文主義と啓蒙主義の和解を見る。即ち、啓蒙主義、特に統治者側からの啓蒙的理念において陶冶概念は国家に有益なものであった。しかしフンボルトは陶冶を単なる道具的概念とすることを認めたくなかった。そこで、啓蒙の諸目的は間接的に、陶冶の意図されたしかし付随的な帰結として実現されるべきである。フンボルトは自由な個人になるように教育された人間の方が、市民になるように教育された人間よりも、究極的にはより良き市民となる、と主張した。「道徳的人間あるいは良き市民」の状態を作り出し国家に奉仕することが国家の究極の目的である。しかしカリキュラム上は直接そのことを目指すのではない。国家目的は、個人を無益な職業訓練に従事させることではなく、個人独自の性格を発展させるように教育することによって、最も良く達成される。(p.193)

フンボルトの作品の随所で登場する「（諸）力」の概念は、ライプニッツの「力」概念の継承。フンボルト自身の受けた教育の中で特に影響力が強かったのはライプニッツであった（ライプニッツはフンボルトにとって最初の哲学的支柱であった）。(p.208)

【第五章　フンボルトの限界とその克服の試み】

「社会の全員が常に社会的意識を持て」と命令することはリバタリアンには許されていない。我々はただ、確固たる人間観なきリバタリアニズムの議論より「緩やかな程度の政治志向性」の方が、社会的意識を有した人間が多く登場すると言い得るのみである。(p.255)

「国家の配慮というものは、全ての者が何を学ぶかではなく、全ての者が学ぶということにある」(Hans Maier, Staat, Kirche, Bildung p.72)

【終章　現代正義論へ向けて】

個々人の善の領域における幸福追求 も、その周囲を囲む領域の安定が前提となっている。秩序安定のために様々な制度（例えば、国家）が考案されるのであるが、この秩序維持に最も重要な要素はやはり人間ではないか。いくら機能的な制度を秩序維持のために導入しても、運用・利用する人間がそれに適合的な資質を持たなかったら、当該制度は秩序の維持に失敗するか、あるいは一部の人間が秩序維持目的の制度を独断的に利用し、他の人々の善を破壊するほどに暴走する恐れがある。(pp.280-281)

【メモ】 Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture (Edward Skidelsky)

【第二章　マールブルク学派】

Natorp and the young Cassirer both rebelled against this [Cohen's] mathematical dogmatism; both tried, as we shall see in the next chapter, to extend the critical method to nonscientific experience. But they nonetheless viewed such experience as a mere "first stage" in the process of objectivization, culminating eventually in physics. Their sights remained fixed on the universal, intersubjective realm of science. The Marburg school thus never fully overcame what we identified in the last chapter as the alienation of scientific reason. Although it struggled mightily against the detachment of science from morality, it could not solve—indeed, it could hardly acknowledge—the more fundamental problem of its divorce from what Husserl was later to call the Lebenswelt—the world of life. (p.45)

Radicalism—as the career of Heidegger amply illustrates—is an ambiguous virtue. Revolutions in thought have an unhappy tendency to be realized in action. Cassirer's refusal, as he put it, to hurl his ideas into empty space, his effort to relate them to those of his Kantian precursors, was fundamentally an attempt to preserve a link with the civilization that his more original contemporaries were busily dismantling. (pp.48-49)

【第三章　新しい論理学】

"The analytic function of thought, with which all these logicians appear to be exclusively concerned, has indeed a good logical claim and practical significance. But we hold fast to the conviction to which Kant has given almost classic expression: 'Where the understanding has not previously united, it cannot dissolve.' Thus ... it is synthesis that is necessarily primary for the logical understanding of knowledge, and the analysis of meaning is required only as its pure corollary." (Paul Natorp, Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften p.9)

Cassirer rejected both attitudes outlined above. He did not share Carnap's view of logic as the framework of all meaningful discourse. Neither did he view it [as Heidegger did] as something to be dissolved "in the turbulence of a more original questioning." His position represents a characteristic refusal to take sides in the debate between a narrow, scientistic rationalism and a virulent irrationalism. By recasting the new logic as transcendental logic, Cassirer was able to register both its achievement and limitation. (p.56)

The historical Kant regarded the concepts of Aristotelian formal logic as constituting an independent "form of thought" which must be "schematised in intuition" in order to yield the categories of transcendental logic. In the Marburg interpretation, this relationship is reversed. Kant may have used formal logic as a "clue" to transcendental logic, explains Cassirer, but this was done not "with the aim of basing the transcendental concepts on the formal ones, but conversely, with the aim of basing the latter on the former, and in that way yielding a more profound understanding of the ultimate ground of their validity." (Kant's Life and Thought p.173) In other words, formal logic is just an abstraction from transcendental logic, with no independent philosophical significance. This revision reflects what I described in the last chapter as the Marburg school's historicization of the transcedental subject. Kant's timeless "form of thought" is dissolved into the ongoing movement of scientific objectivization, which casts off, like dead skins, the structures of pure mathematics and logic. Cassirer's logic of objective knowledge is not to be regarded as founded on symbolic logic, then, but as revealing its true foundation. (p.58)

Science is always looking forward to future consummation; it is, to borrow Cassirer's favorite phrase from Leibniz, gros de l'avenir—pregnant with the future. We must therefore reject the binary view of scientific theories as either true or false. The movement of science is not from false to true but from less comprehensive to more comprehensive. (p.62)

From the standpoint of conventional formal logic, according to which all propositions are either true or false, they [Cassirer's passages] are almost unintelligible. But from Cassirer's standpoint, it is formal logic that ultimately renders unintelligible the dynamic process of scientific discovery. (pp.62-63)

His real objection is to Cohen's more fundamental philosophical claim that the relation "is a category only insofar as it is a function [関数]." And here Russell's calculus of relations comes to his assistance. It enables Cassirer to transfer priority from the specifically mathematical notion of function to the general logical notion of relation. The former now appears as a special case of the latter, with no uniquely "categorical" significance. The possibility of categorical yet nonetheless nonmathematical relations—and thus of nonmathematical objectivization—is opened up. (p.65)

【第四章　イロニーと悲劇の間で】

"for the genius one case counts for a thousand" (Goethe)

Particularly interesting, from our point of view, is a 1932 essay by the art historian Edgar Wind, a former doctoral student of Cassirer and a member of his intellectual circle. Although personally on good terms with Cassirer, Wind was critical, from an empiricist standpoint, of his philosophy of symbolic forms. His portrait of Goethe throws some light on their differences. Wind looks askance at the very thing Cassirer so admired in the poet—namely, his irony, his capacity to treat every interpretation of reality symbolically. Where Cassirer sees only breadth and flexibility of mind, Wind discerns a subtle form of evasion. "Goethe said of himself that he viewed everything symbolically. This is an admission that in his case imagination served to transform things into images, to divest them of their substantiality, enabling him to escape the claims they might have had on him as things." It was only by renouncing reality, with its harsh, conflicting demands, that Goethe was able to achieve his celebrated inner harmony. His entire career can be seen as "a flight from life to image." It is possible that Wind formulated these remarks with his former teacher in mind. They certainly apply as well to Cassirer as they do to Goethe. (p.86)

One of the very few persons who read it [Habilitationsschrift, Experiment and Metaphysics] was the late Ernst Cassirer, and I am sorry to say it made that amiable man extremely angry. In honour of his memory I must protest against the suggestion that we held the same view about the nature of symbols. My thesis was that symbols are "real" only to the extent in which they can be embodied in an experimentum crucis whose outcome is directly observable—in his view a deplorable lapse into "empiricism." (Edgar Wind, letter to the Times Literary Supplement)

Opposition to the positivist instrumentalization of science was, as we have seen, a central part of the program of Marburg neo-Kantianism and Substance and Function. But it was only later that Cassirer began to attack positivism and instrumentalism not simply as theories in the philosophy of science but as cultural and political phenomena. Like Warburg, he viewed them as expressions of the hubris of a civilization that has forgotten or suppressed its own mythical origins, thereby opening the door to their revival. Cassirer cites as an example the degeneration of Comtean positivism into a pseudoreligion, complete with priests and temples of science. And in The Myth of the State he shows how the instrumentalization of political reason, initially undertaken in a spirit of enlightenment, eventually gives rise to the myths of modern totalitarianism. Cassirer explicitly conceived his own philosophy as an antidote to the "forgetfulness" of positivism. Like the Warburg Library, it is an attempt on the part of reason at mnemosyne or recollection. It is based on the conviction that reason can understand and feel "at home" with itself only when it has succeeded in reconstructing its own ascent from the sphere of myth. (p.98)

【第五章　象徴形式の哲学】

For all his phenomenological flirtations, Cassirer remained faithful to Cohen and Natorp's conception of philosophy as "bound to the fact of science as this constitutes itself, and therewith to the whole of human culture." Philosophy has no empire of its own; it can do no more than clarify and draw together the tendencies implicit in the arts and sciences. It is, so to speak, the self-consciousness of culture. (p.102)

[Ernst's wife] Toni Cassirer's memoir contains the following revealing story. When Cassirer's son Heinz expressed a wish to study philosophy directly after leaving school, Cassirer demurred. "It was Ernst's unshakable opinion," adds Toni, "that philosophy should never stand isolated but should rather spring spontaneously from the study of other sciences." (Toni Cassirer, Mein Leben mit Ernst Cassirer p.134)

The mythical origins of human culture cannot be eliminated altogether, but they can be confined to what Warburg called "the distant shadowy realm of the explicit metaphor." The myths we need are the spiritualized ones of religion and the playful ones of art. These absorb, discipline, and refine the energies that would otherwise find expression in the brutally literal myths of totalitarian politics. (p.109)

Expressive phenomena are not to be viewed, insists Cassirer, as a "projection" of inner states onto a neutral physical substratum. On the contrary, it is this "neutral substratum" that is itself derivative, a product of scientific analysis. "We arrive at the data of mere sensation—such as light or dark, warm or cold, rough or smooth—only by setting away a fundamental stratum of perception, by doing away with it, so to speak, for a definite theoretical purpose. (...) This disregard is perfectly justified from the point of view of the purely theoretical intention, the intention of building an objective order of nature and apprehending its laws; but it cannot do away with the world of expressive phenomena as such." (The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms 3.37). Myth is therefore not, as commonly presented, a spiritualization of a neutral physical reality but a state prior to the very distinction between the spiritual and the physical. (...) All nature is imbued with spirit, yet spirit, by the same token, belongs entirely to nature. (p.116)

【第六章　論理実証主義】

 "I would allow as 'a priori' in the strict sense, really only the thought of the 'unity of nature,' that is to say the lawfulness of experience in general (...): but how this thought is made specific in particular principles and presuppositions—this comes to light only in the progress of scientific experience." (Ernst Cassirer, letter to Schlick)

"This transition [from one form of physical theory to another] never means that the fundamental form absolutely disappears, and another absolutely new form arises in its place. The new form must contain the answers to questions proposed within the older form; this one feature establishes a logical connection between them, and points to a common forum of judgement to which both are subjected." (Substance and Function p.268)

"For a purely descriptive ethics that remains strictly within its own boundaries, there clearly exists no ground for such a rejection [of fanaticism]. In every age, fanaticism has not merely proved its power in human affairs, it has also been advocated and preached as an ideal; and today it is lauded on many sides almost as 'the' moral ideal per se. A moral philosophy that wishes to be nothing more than a science of factual moral evaluations, in their historical actuality and development, must therefore be content to record this fact alongside other facts." (The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms 3.xv)

"Cassirer trusts religious far more than scientific enlightenment as a counter-force to the violence of political myths—he relies on the confinement of myth within its own proper sphere, which was long ago achieved by monotheism."(Jürgen Habermas, The Liberating Power of Symbols p.26)

If we, the enlightened, are to prevail, we cannot shut ourselves up within the closed circle of reason. The formulas of science and economics are not enough. We must learn the language of unreason, the better to master and subdue it. (p.158)

Ritual denunciations of the "genetic fallacy" will convince only those who have already lost faith in tradition as a source of norms. (p.159)

【第七章　生の哲学】

Symbolism is not a dark glass separating us from reality as it is "in itself"; it is the medium within which any possible reality appears. There is, then, no conceivable extrasymbolic reality in contrast to which it can be denigrated as "artificial." Culture is not a garment thrown over the bareness of nature; it is our nature. The mask is the face, the face the mask. (pp.162-163)

[For Bergson, i]f we want the object itself, in all its concrete glory, we must do away with concepts and adopt the standpoint of pure intuition. This is the method of metaphysics, a science that—in a phrase pinpointing Cassirer's disagreement with Lebensphilosophie—"claims to dispense with symbols." (Henri Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics p.24) (p.166)

【第八章　ハイデガー】

Through the efforts of Scheler and and others, motifs from Bergson, Dilthey, and Nietzsche were translated into the rigorously "presuppositionless" idiom of Husserl—a process paralleling the transformation of positivism into logical positivism. Thus was born that strange monster: a rigorous irrationalism, a system against systems. This monster came to maturity in Heidegger's masterpiece, Being and Time. (pp.195-196)

Heidegger's philosophy—and this is of course a serious worry—contains nothing to rule out a fascist interpretation. But neither should it simply be identified with fascism or with any other political stance. Philosophical theories are not just sublimated ideologies; they have a dynamic of their own, cutting across ideological boundaries. (p.197)

The truth of a philosophical proposition is not dependent on its political implications. Whoever has philosophy at heart must treat its problems on their own terms, dealing as best he can, through irony, esotericism, or simple silence, with any unpalatable consequences. What he cannot do is change his metaphysics to suit his politics. I am therefore skeptical of recent attempts to revise the verdict of Davos in line with current political sensibilities. Many scholars, especially in Germany, regard Cassirer's rout and subsequent neglect as an injustice, a national disgrace, for which amends must now be made. "The question remains pertinent, indeed overdue," writes Enno Rudolph, "why so constructive and rigorous an anti-nihilistic critique of European modernity as that developed by Cassirer had to lose out, in German philosophy since Heidegger, to the destructive type of anti-modernism." Cassirer lost out not just in Germany, though, but all over Europe, and for reasons that are not just political but authentically philosophical. As we have seen, his vision of philosophy as the critique of culture gave way to the aprioristic conceptions of Wittgenstein and Husserl—a shift whose ultimate explanation lies in the First World War and the accompanying loss of faith in history. Lost faith is not easily recovered. We cannot just "go back" to Cassirer; we cannot pretend that the twentieth century didn't happen. (pp.218-219)

Analytic philosophy has withstood the influence of Heidegger, but only by transforming itself into a purely technical discipline, indifferent to questions of culture and politics. Russell was a free-thinking progressivist, Frege an anti-Semitic reactionary, yet they could converse with perfect amicability on the subject of symbolic logic. Whether this marks the advent of philosophy as "rigorous science" or its final descent into triviality is another question. Our contemporary situation is, then, a torn one. We are inheritors of two histories—the one political, in which liberalism triumphed over its fascist and communist rivals, the other philosophical, in which it lost out to the Existenzphilosophie of Heidegger and the technicism of the analytic tradition. Cassirer's liberalism was all of a piece; it was at once political, cultural, and philosophical. Such unity of vision is impossible for us. Our political principles find no support in our cultural tastes, religious beliefs, or metaphysical insights. We pay tribute to Cassirer, but Heidegger remains the secret master of our thought. (p.219)

【第九章　政治】

Cassirer's appeal lies in his promise to ground political liberalism in a broader vision of human culture. He epitomizes that attitude of mind—dispassionate, ironic, and optimistic—without which liberalism in the narrow [legal or economic] sense cannot hope to survive. (p.222)

Contemporary liberals are faced, whether they like it or not, with the unpromising task of erecting a philosophy of political hope on a foundation of cultural despair. (p.222)

His criticism of Rousseau is at the same time a criticism of the so-called German concept of freedom through the state. His own preference is for the Anglo-Saxon liberal conception of freedom from the state. Yet he avoids the utilitarianism usually associated with this conception, appealing instead to the idealist notions of "humanity" and "personality." Cassirer has, one might say, married a negative conception of political freedom to a positive conception of spiritual freedom. This union is not original; its prototype can be found in Leibniz, Kant, and Humboldt. But in an era when liberalism of any kind was viewed as an excrescence of the English commercial spirit, as a "philosophy of life from which German youth now turns with nausea, with wrath, with quite peculiar scorn," Cassirer's reminder of a distinctively German form of liberalism was apt and timely. (p.229)

We have inherited liberal political institutions from our past, but not the surrounding climate of ideas that once nourished them. Gone are the certainties of the Christian era; gone, too, the cultural optimism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Our predecessors believed that political liberty would lead not only to greater material prosperity but also to the spread of knowledge, the weakening of prejudice, and the flowering of the arts. Who would dare to assert that now? (p.236)

Under these conditions, liberalism has become a purely official creed, publicly upheld rather than deeply felt, the province of lawyers and academic specialists. Economists can explain the role of law in stimulating growth, but not the point of growth itself. Political philosophers elaborate theories of justice, yet have nothing to say about their historical or metaphysical foundations. The expansive vision of Humboldt, Tocqueville, and Acton has hardened into a set of peremptory legal claims, advanced in shrill, dogmatic tones or at the point of a gun. No wonder we look back with nostalgia to a liberal such as Cassirer, whose interests were not confined solely, or even principally, to politics but spanned the breadth of human civilization. His was a humane and happy dream, and even if it was only a dream, it casts a reproachful shadow on our present age. (pp.236-237)

マイケル・ポランニー『暗黙知の次元』について

以下の文章は、マイケル・ポランニー『暗黙知の次元』の読書会のために用意したレジュメである。担当箇所はpp.79-91。頁番号は、特に断りのない限り、全て高橋勇男訳（ちくま学芸文庫）のもの。

---

【背景―暗黙知的構造の拡張】

マイケル・ポランニーの「暗黙知」(tacit knowing; tacit knowledge) [1]と言えば、「言葉に表せない・明示化できない知識」だとよく説明される。もちろんこれは全く正しい。実際、本書の第一章は専ら暗黙知のこの側面の考察に割かれている。しかしそれは他方で暗黙知の一側面、認識論におけるその顕現に過ぎない。暗黙知概念そのものの射程はもっと広い。というのも、『暗黙知の次元』におけるポランニーの企ては、暗黙知的構造の及ぶ範囲を人間の認識・知覚から世界そのものへと広げることだからである。第一章では、人間の認識・知覚の暗黙知的構造が考察の対象であった。そこでポランニーは「内在化」(interiorization)、ないし「身体化」(in-dwelling)という概念を提示し、ある事物を近位項として機能させることによって、我々が自らの身体を世界の方へと開いていく様子を描いていた。この延長線上に第二章の存在論の議論がある。ここでポランニーは、職人の技を理解するという事例を挙げ、次の仮定を置く：「他のすべての暗黙知の事例においても、包括する行為の構造と、その行為の対象たる包括的存在の構造は、一致する」（p.63; 原文傍点）。この仮定は、暗黙知概念を認識・知覚の領域から存在論の領域へ拡張する上で、議論の鍵となるアイデアであるように思われるものの、正直言って非常に理解しづらい。具体的に言えば、ポランニーは一体どのような世界観に基づいてこのような仮定を置いているのか、いまいちピンと来ないのである。この問題は後で取り上げることにして、とりあえず長い前置きを終えて自分の担当箇所に移りたい。

【境界制御の原理】

第二章の前半でポランニーは、すべての生命現象を物理学と化学の法則によって説明しようとする生物学者を批判するという論脈で、「境界制御の原理」(the principle of marginal control)という概念を提示していた。システムの下位レベルの諸要素の振る舞いに境界条件を付与することによって、上位レベルに一定のパターンが出現するが、こうした境界条件の付与を「境界制御」と呼んでいるのである。そしてポランニーの主要論点は、具体的な境界制御の決め方、すなわち上位レベルの組織化原理は、下位レベルからは論理的に独立であり、したがって後者だけからは出現しえない、ということである(pp.79-80)。ポランニーは、下位レベルに存在しない組織化原理が上位レベルで出現するこうした過程を「創発」(emergence)と呼び、非生命からの生命の誕生にそのパラダイムを見ているのである(pp.78-79)。

【進化論の神学的書き換え】

アンリ・ベルクソンの「エラン・ヴィタール」（生命の跳躍）とも共鳴するこうした創発概念に基づき、ポランニーは、進化論の大胆な書き換えに着手する(p.82)。彼によれば、現行の進化論が前提とする自然淘汰説は、新種の個体群の出現は説明できても、新種の個体の出現を説明できない(p.83)。ある一個の人間の発生の系譜を太古の原形質まで遡って考えたとき、その発生の因果連鎖には、自然淘汰に欠かせない「逆境」(adversity)の要素が存在しない、と言うのである。議論が簡潔過ぎて決して分かりやすいとは言えないが、少なくともポランニーが考えている進化が、ランダムな突然変異と淘汰の積み重ねではないことは明らかであろう。彼からすれば、生物学の専門家たちが想定するこうした進化概念では、新奇性や自律性の出現を説明できないのである。ポランニーにとって進化とはむしろ、科学活動におけるのと全く同じような「発見」のプロセスなのである(pp.85-86)。これはおそらく、メタファーでも単なる擬人化でもなく、文字通り、意味獲得に関わる暗黙知的構造が、生命が誕生する原初の創発から、人間の認識・知覚に至るまで、貫いて伏在しているということなのだろう（ところでこの同一視こそが、私が上で挙げた問題に繋がる）。ここで、下位レベルの組織化原理が未決定のままに開いている境界条件を埋めるという跳躍的作用が、近位項から遠位項に向かって意味を見出す認識の運動に対応するのだろう（とはいえこの対応関係も本書の記述ではあまり明確とは言えない）。そして太古の原形質に始まるこの宇宙論スケールの進化のプロセスの頂点に位置するのが人間の知能、とりわけその道徳感覚である(p.86, pp.89-90)。これは露骨なほど明らかにキリスト教的な立場である。[2] 少々長くなるが、この点について参考になるので、ポランニーの主著『個人的知識』(Personal Knowledge)の結びの言葉を引いておこう：

われわれの知る限り、人間に体現されている宇宙の微小な諸断片は、可視的世界における思考と責任の唯一の中心である。もしそれが真実ならば、人間の心の出現は、いまのところ世界の覚醒の究極的な段階であり、それに先んじたすべての物事、生きることと信ずることのリスクを引き受けた無数の中心の格闘は、すべて、さまざまに異なる経路をとりながらも、現在、われわれがここまで達成している目標を追求してきたように思われる。それらは、すべてわれわれの血族である。というのは、これらすべての中心、すなわち、われわれ自身の存在をもたらし、その多くがすでに消滅した異なる経路を生み出した、無数に多くの他の中心の存在をもたらした、すべての中心は、究極的な解放に向かっての同一の努力に従事しているように見えるからである。われわれは、そこで、ひとつの宇宙の場を、短命で限定され危険に満ちた機会を各中心に与えて、それらが考えもおよばない完成に向かって前進するようにと命じた、ひとつの宇宙の場を思い浮かべてもよいかもしれない。そして、それはまた、——私はそう信ずるが——キリスト教徒が神を礼拝するときの在り方でもあるのだ。[3]

 
非キリスト教徒の近代人にとって、このような記述を理解するのは容易ではないだろうし、共感することはほぼ不可能だろう。しかし、この壮大な形而上学が荒唐無稽に見えるとすれば、それは偏に、我々近代人が人間と自然を切り離して考える習慣に囚われているからだ、とポランニーなら言うかもしれない。そしてこの点が再び、私が冒頭に挙げた問題に繋がる。すなわち、いかなる世界観に基づいてポランニーは、認識論・知覚論の次元における暗黙知と、存在論の次元における創発とを同一視しているのか、という問題である。

 【主体と客体の融即】

暗黙知と創発を巡るポランニーの議論を初めて読んだとき、私には非常に奇妙に感じられた（今読み返してもやはり奇妙である）。その理由は、彼が主体と客体の区別に無頓着であるからだと思われる。暗黙知を論じているのだから、当然、その「知」を所有しているのは誰なのか、という主体の問題が出てくる。人間の認識・知覚を論じている限り、主体性の在処ははっきりしている。すなわち個人である。しかし議論が創発に移り、暗黙知と創発が同一視された途端に、語られているのは誰の暗黙知なのか、訳が分からなくなる。私は以前、ポランニーを一種の観念論者として解釈していた。つまり、個人が所有する暗黙知の及ぶ範囲が、身体から、例えば歩き慣れた道といった境界事例を通して、究極的には世界全体とぴったり一致する、といったような描像である。しかしこのような解釈ではポランニーの記述を整合的に解釈することが難しいことに気付いた（例えば、生命誕生の瞬間には当然、それを認識する人間主体が存在しなかった）。そこで辿り着いたのが、ポランニーにとってはあらゆる生命（そして非生命？）が、視点や状況に応じて主体であったり客体であったりする、という一種の汎心論的見方である。暗黙知と創発の具体的な対応関係は相変わらず曖昧であるものの、少なくともこの解釈にはシンプルさの利点があるように思うが、如何だろう。ところで本節のタイトルに挙げた「融即」という言葉は、ポランニーに影響を与えたらしいフランスの社会哲学者・文化人類学者レヴィ＝ブリュールに由来する。未開部族の観察から彼は、個人が自らの感情や動機を外界の事物と共感的に同一視する作用に注目し、これを「融即」(participation)と名付けたのである。[4] こうした関連から、ポランニーの暗黙知と創発の同一視が含意する主体と客体の問題を考えてみるのも興味深いかもしれない。

---

[1] tacit knowingもtacit knowledgeもともに「暗黙知」と訳されるため、邦訳ではこの区別が難しくなる。ポランニーが使うのは専らtacit knowingの方であるが、このことから、彼の暗黙知概念は動名詞であるから「知識」のことではない、と結論するのは早計である（実際このような主張をしばしば目にする）。というのも『暗黙知の次元』の冒頭で彼は次のように断っているからである：「私は“知る”(knowing)という言葉を常に、実践的な知識と理論的な知識(practical and theoretical knowledge)の両方を包含するものとして使う」（原著p.7; 高橋訳では文意が伝わりづらくなっているので、敢えて拙訳を用いた）。

[2] ポランニーはユダヤ人の家庭に生まれているものの、熱心なキリスト教徒である。1919年にはカトリックの洗礼を受けており、後年プロテスタントの立場に傾倒していったようである（William T. Scottによるポランニーの伝記Michael Polanyi: Scientist and Philosopherを参照）。また、『個人的知識』は英語圏ではキリスト教神学者への影響が絶大であり、ポランニー体系の研究や解説の多くがキリスト教神学の論脈においてなされているそうである。

[3] マイケル・ポランニー『個人的知識』（長尾史郎訳，ハーベスト社，1995年）。今手元に本がないので頁番号は不明。

[4] リュシアン・レヴィ＝ブリュール『未開社会の思惟』（山田吉彦訳，岩波文庫，1991年）

【メモ】 The American Pragmatists (Cheryl Misak)

Cheryl Misak (2013) The American Pragmatists, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

【第一章　初期アメリカ思想におけるプラグマティズム的諸テーマ】

The fact that we can be surprised suggests that experience is not illusory and the world is not constructed entirely by us. Although we may color the universe, there is something that we are coloring. (p.12) cf. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Collected Works 3: 48

【第二章　Chauncey Wright】

But whatever be the origin of the theories of science, Whether from a systematic examination of empirical facts by conscious induction, or from the natural biases of the mind, the so-called intuitions of reason, what seems probable without a distinct survey of our experiences—whatever the origin, real or ideal, the value of these theories can only be tested ... by an appeal to sensible experience, by deductions from them of consequences which we can confirm by the undoubted testimony of the senses. (Chauncey Wright, Philosophical Discussions p.46)

This is a signal difference between pragmatism and British empiricism. Pramatism is not primarily a view about the sources or origins of belief, but a view of what tests a belief must pass once we have it. It is a view about what it is for a belief to count as non-spurious, genuine, or legitimate. (pp.17-18)

A belief can have consequences for the believer—it can make me feel better, it can influence my train of thought, I can desire it to be true, etc. But that is not the kind of consequence Wright thinks salient. A belief must have consequences not only for the believer, but for the world. The importance of this distinction will amplify as we march through the history of pragmatism. (pp.24-25)

【第三章　Charles Sanders Peirce】

[W]hen Paul Carus associated him [Peirce] with Hume in an article published in The Monist titled "Mr. Charles S. Peirce's Onslaught on the Doctrine of Necessity," Peirce resisted the comparison (Collected Papers 6.605). It is interesting, though, that it was not the empiricism he objected to. It was the nominalist metaphysical underpinnings of it. (p.28)

He [Peirce] did not want to define truth as that which satisfies our aims in inquiry. A dispute about definition, he says, is usually a "profitless discussion" (CP 8. 100). ... The pragmatist is merely getting one fix on the idea of truth. (p.36)

[For Peirce,] a true belief is such that it would withstand doubt, were we to inquire as far as we fruitfully could into the matter. A true belief is such that, no matter how much further we were to investigate and  debate, that belief would not be overturned by recalcitrant experience and argument. Peirce says: "if Truth consists in satisfaction, it cannot be any actual satisfaction, but must be the satisfaction that would ultimately be found if the inquiry were pushed to its ultimate and indefeasible issue" (Collected Papers 5.569; 6.485). (p.37)

We have in our various inquiries and deliberations a multiplicity of aims—empirical adequacy, coherence with other beliefs, simplicity, explanatory power, getting a reliable guide to action, fruitfulness for other research, greater understanding of others, living peacefully with others, increased maturity, and the like. When we say that we aim at the truth, what we mean is that, were a belief really to satisfy all of our local aims in inquiry, then that belief would be true. There is nothing over and above the fulfillment of those aims, nothing metaphysical, to which we aspire. Truth is not some transcendental, mystical thing and we do not aim at it for its own sake. (p.37)

The emotion of surprise is "merely the instinctive indication of the logical situation. It is evolution (φύσις) that has provided us with the emotion" (CP 7.190) (p.39)
→　パースの言う「経験の強制力」は単なる心理的、情緒的な衝動ではない。後者はあくまで進化の産物。（では一体何か？）

What we can say, he [Peirce] thinks, is that the fact that we have only our interpretations of what we experience does not throw us into a sea of arbitrary interpretations, where there is no connection to what is real. Our perceptual judgments, Peirce argues, are indices of our percepts—of the actual clash between us and the world. (p.40)

Peirce ... thinks that we can know something of the world as it exists independently of us—we can know that it is there and that it constrains us. Peirce turns to the idea that we can be mistaken in order to show that there is an objective truth and that reality that [sic] goes beyond what you or I or any collection of people happen to think: "The experience of ignorance, or of error, which we have, and which we gain by means of correcting our errors, or enlarging our knowledge, does enable us to experience and conceive something which is independent of our own limited views" (CP 7.345). (p.40)

This forceful element [of experiential judgements] is our link with a reality, something that goes beyond us: "Now the 'hardness' of fact lies in the insistency of the percept, its entirely irrational insistency, —the element of Secondness in it. That is a very important factor of reality" (CP 7.659). (p.41)

Peirce thinks that the theory of evolution tells us, indeed, that our capacities have been selected for survival, but that, nonetheless, we aim at getting beliefs not merely with survival benefits, but beliefs that are independent of human capacities and contexts of inquiry. (p.41n)

The seemingly unsolvable problem of induction disintegrates once we acknowledge that regularities abound, but only some of them want explanations. Only unexpected or surprising regularities make a demand on us to make an inference to the best explanation. (p.49)
→　驚きを伴わない規則性は習慣の領域に沈滞している。

"The sole immediate purpose of thinking is to render things intelligible; and to think and yet in that very act to think a thing unintelligible is a self-stultification. It is as though a man furnished with a pistol to defend himself against an enemy were, on finding that enemy very redoubtable, to use his pistol to blow his own brains out to escape being killed by his enemy. Despair is insanity. ... We must therefore be guided by the rule of hope" (CP 1.405)

【第四章　William James】

He [James] notes with approval that Jonathan Edwards thought that it was by the fruits not the roots that we must test our beliefs (The Varieties of Religious Experience p.25). (p.70)

【第五章　Holmes、Royce、Schiller】

[For Holmes, law] is an enterprise of inquiry, or "successive approximation," that starts from precedent and then is driven by experience, conflict, and unanticipated problems. (p.78)

Peirce is adamant, with Royce, that we have to preserve a gap in which error can live. (p.84)
→　パースにおいては、outward clashがこの間隙を保証する。

【第七章　John Dewey】

[For Dewey] A belief has to satisfy the inquirer's needs and it has to satisfy the situation. It is bound to the personal or the psychological but it also has to meet what the situation demands of it. (p.112)

"The way in which men do 'think' denotes ... simply the ways in which men at a given time carry on their inquiries. So far as it is used to register a difference from the ways in which they ought to think, it denotes a difference like that between good and bad farming or good and bad medical practice. Men think in ways they should not when they follow methods of inquiry that experience of past inquiries shows are not competent to reach the intended end of the inquiries in question" (The Later Works 12.107)
 →　パースが規範性を未来の探求に求めるのに対して、デューイは過去にそれを見出す。

It is certainly the case that those pragmatists who want to talk about the world and its constraints need to work hard to show how there is some space between their view and that of their realist opponents. We have seen that Peirce opens us that gap by arguing that we have no cognitive access to the world of independent objects—it is only by abstracting the forceful element from experience that we can get an inkling that the world is there. Dewey, on the other hand, needs to work to say why his view remains suflficiently far away from his idealist opponents who have a hard time making sense of the ideas of improvement, mistakes, and standards. (p.119)

"It is the situation that has these traits [vagueness and confusion]. We are doubtful because the situation is inherently doubtful" (The Later Works 12.109)

"The question naturally arises how Professor Dewey comes to have a metaphysics. How does he know that specificity, interaction, change, characterize all existence, and that these distinctions are not merely logical, made for purposes of getting along in this world, but characters of an independent existence? Why does he impute the features presented in human experience to a nature embracing, but containing more than, that experience?" (Ernest Nagel, "Can Logic be Divorced From Ontology?" p.707)

Nagel thinks that we need to distinguish "symbols from the subject-matter to which they point." We have seen that Peirce agrees, although his way of distinguishing these two things is as minimal as possible—all we can do is point or gesture at the subject matter. (p.121)

"Mr. Russell proceeds first by converting a doubtful situation into a personal doubt, although the difference between the two things is repeatedly pointed out by me. I have even repeatedly stated that a personal doubt is pathological unless it is a reflection of a situation which is problematic. Then by changing doubt into private discomfort, truth is identified with removal of this discomfort. The only desire that enters, according to my view, is desire to resolve as honestly and impartially as possible the problem involved in the situation. 'Satisfaction' is satisfaction of the conditions prescribed by the problem. Personal satisfaction may enter in as it arises when any job is well done according to the requirements of the job itself; but it does not enter in any way into the determination of validity, because, on the contrary, it is determined by that validity" (The Later Works 14.156)

Dewey is set against the "intellectualist" account of truth, on which truth is "antecedent to any process of verification" (The Middle Works 4.76).

Another way of putting this disagreement between Peirce and Dewey is to ask whether truth is a static phenomenon. Both reject the idea that truth is static in the sense that our beliefs either mirror the world of the Absolute (and are hence true) or fail to do so (and are hence false). But Peirce thinks that truth is static in the sense that a belief either would or would not survive the rigors of inquiry. Again, Dewey usually stays away from this thought. His interest ends with beliefs that show themselves to resolve a particular, local problem. (p.127)

 【第八章　Mead、Santayana】

He [Santayana] thinks that "in their hearts and lives," Americans are all pragmatists: "Their real philosophy is the philosophy of enterprise." They are optimists who "turn their scorn of useless thought into a glad denial of its existence" ("Apologia Pro Mente Sua" p.248-249 in Paul Schilpp, The Philosophy of George Santayana). He did not want to be associated with the American "business intellect" way of thinking. He preferred the intellectual company of Spinoza and the ancient Greeks. (p.144)

He alludes to the two shortcomings in Dewey's philosophy—the awkward metaphysics and the inability to adjudicate—in one harsh sentence. Dewey remains an idealist with Emerson, Schelling, and Hegel: "romantic, transcendental, piously receiving as absolute the inspiration dominating moral life in their day and country" ("Dewey's Naturalist Metaphysics" p.680). (pp.144-145)

"Living when human faith is again in a state of dissolution, I have imitated the Greek sceptics in calling doubtful everything that, in spite of common sense, any one can possibly doubt. But since life and even discussion forces me to break away from a complete scepticism, I have determined not to do so surreptitiously nor at random, ignominiously taking cover now behind one prejudice and now behind another. Instead I have frankly taken nature by the hand, accepting as a rule in my farthest speculations the animal faith I live by from day to day." (Scepticism and Animal Faith p.308)

Philosophy must begin in the middle of things. We assume that many of our beliefs are true and we need not be pushed into trying to prove those beliefs or show that they are certainly or infallibly true. We do not need Cartesian requirements for certainty. (p.147)

"I stand in philosophy exactly where I stand in daily life ; I should not be honest otherwise." (Scepticism and Animal Faith p.vi)

"You cannot prove realism to a complete sceptic or idealist; but you can show an honest man that he is not a complete sceptic or idealist, but a realist at heart" ("Three Proofs of Realism" in Essays in Critical Realism p.184)

Santayana and Peirce struggle mightily to articulate the good side of this thought [James's idea of the Will to Believe]. They both argue that we must accept the bulk of our beliefs, but always keep them open to recalcitrant experience and never believe them on grounds extraneous to facts and reasons. This last point is important. Like Peirce, when Santayana uses the word "faith," he does not mean to mark something that is unbacked by reasons. He says that instead of using "so brutal a term as animal faith," he might have used "cognitive instinct, empirical confidence, even practical reason" ("Apologia Pro Mente Sua" p.586). Each of these alternatives makes it clear that there is something normative or non-arbitrary in what we need to assume. (p.148)

"Why does belief that you can jump a ditch help you to jump it? Because it is a symptom of the fact that you could jump it, that your legs were fit and that the ditch was two yards wide and not twenty. A rapid and just appreciation of these facts has iven you your confidence, or at least has made it reasonable, manly, and prophetic; otherwise you would have been a fool and got a ducking for it." ("The Genteel Tradition in American Philosophy" in The Genteel Tradition in American Philosophy and Character and Opinion in the United States p.61)

The encountering of "brute fact" is the "ground" for Santayana's realism ("Apologia Pro Mente Sua"p.504-505). The "experience of shock" "establishes realism"—it establishes "a world of independent existences" (Scepticism and Animal Faith p.142). Santayana does not want to be associated with the pragmatists because he thinks that a pragmatist such as Dewey is "a philosopher of the foreground" ("Dewey's Naturalistic Metaphysics" p.680), too content with the surface of things. (p.148)

【第十章　Clarence Irving Lewis】

With Peirce (and Kant), Lewis takes the given to be that which is not under our control—that which is independent of the mind's constructive activities. (p.183)

[For Lewis] the given is that which impinges upon us or resists our attempts to change it and thus constrains our opinions (this is the set of thoughts he shares with Peirce). There is no need to add that the given is something that has a certain structure or quality. (p.183n)

What Lewis argues is that there must be something constraining the truth and falsity of our statements and beliefs. (p.184)

For Lewis, it is experience—not logic, not conceptual truth—that is brute and compelling. (p.192)
→　ア・プリオリな真理は確かに必然的だが、それのみを受け容れるよう我々を強制するという意味で必然的ではない。そのような意味でbruteなのは経験の抗力。

"What is a priori is necessary truth not because it compels the mind's acceptance, but precisely because it does not. It is given experience, brute fact, the a posteriori element in knowledge which the mind must accept willy-nilly. The a priori represents an attitude in some sense freely taken, a stipulation of the mind itself, and a stipulation which might be made in some other way if it suited our bent or need. Such truth is necessary as opposed to contingent, not as opposed to voluntary. "("A Pragmatic Conception of Truth" p.231)

"we cannot capture the truth of experience if we have no net to catch it in" (The Mind and the World Order p.271) →　この網がア・プリオリな概念やカテゴリー。それは経験のあり方を規定するから経験から独立なのではなく、経験を規定しない（経験のbrtueな抗力に任せる）からこそ独立。また、この網は一つとは限らず、プラグマティックに選択され得る。Lewisの言葉を使えば、それは"uncompelled initiative of human thought"である。

Lewis rejects the idea, again sometimes found in James, that "new truth" replaces "old truth." When a new belief replaces an overturned belief, that should suggest that the old belief was false, not an old truth. ... An assertion always "outruns" our current evidence and best thinking. It reaches into the future and makes a prediction that the evidence and best thinking will continue to support the assertion. This, of course, is the Peircean conception of truth. (p.194)

【第十一章　Willard van Orman Quine】

[T]he insight of disquotationalism is precisely the insight of pragmatism. Both hold that when we assert that p is true, what we are doing is asserting p. The Peircean pragmatist modifies this shared thought slightly, not wanting to limp around with warranted belief. When we assert that p is true, what we are doing is asserting p and asserting that p would remain assertible. ... Both pragmatism and disquotationalism, that is, keep us focused on first-order inquiry. (p.206)

【第十三章　Richard Rorty】

Calling for a dissolution of a dualism, such as that between relativism and absolutism, does not guarantee that one succeeds in escaping the pitfalls of one or the other of the two positions. And it does not guarantee that one will not end up shuttling between the two disliked positions, depending on the particular critique to which one is responding. That is, after the call for the abandonment of a way of looking at things, one must replace the problematic mode of thinking with a new way that really does undercut the problems endemic in the old way of seeing the issue. One must replace the old dichotomy of "objective standards or no standards at all" with low-profile, non-absolutist conceptions of truth and objectivity which can guide us in our inquiries and deliberations. The pragmatist must replace the old dichotomy with distinctly pragmatist accounts of truth, objectivity, and normativity. (p.231)

Frank Ramsey also held that the pragmatist need not take "p is true" to be identified with "p is useful." For the belief p will be useful only if p. See his "Facts and Propositions." (p.232n)

As [Huw] Price puts it, pragmatists start not by asking what the analytic definition of truth is, but rather, why speakers have the notion of truth they have. They should see, he thinks, that our notion of truth does not line up neatly with warrant asertiblity, nor with disquotation. We need a stronger notion of truth than is provided by either of those notions (Naturalism Without Mirrors p.16). (p.233)

To do without truth is to silence our conversations—both our conversations with others and our internal conversations. For the very essence of the norm of truth is to give disagreement its immediate normative character. It is to make disagreement matter. Without the grit provided by the concept of truth, the wheels of argument do not engage; disagreements slide past one another. (p.234)

【第十四章　Hilary Putnam】

[For Putnam] One cannot dodge the problem of saying what truth is by replacing truth with assertibility and then not saying what assertibility is. And once one says what assertibility is, one is taken to a substantial view of truth. (p.242)

【メモ】 Christopher Hookway, Peirce (The Arguments of the Philosophers)

【真理と探究】

[Peirce] claims that a sensation of tone, for example, can be seen as a kind of hypothetic inference; the idea is that through unconscious inference, a sequence of distinct vibrations of the eardrum are unified into a single experience, the sensation unifying a manifold of vibrations just as a hypothesis unifies a variety of data. This suggestion that we think of sensations as analogous to predicates is supported by rejecting the nominalist assumption that sensations are wholly singular representations. If an image or representation is wholly singular, Peirce believes that for any property p, the situation represented would either be represented as one in which p was realized or as one in which it was not. The state of affairs would be determinate. The 'generality' of sensory images is revealed in their vagueness: for example, we can see a speckled surface without seeing it as having a definite number of speckles; our sensation is applicable to a variety of distinct states of affairs so is implicitly general. (pp.34-35)

"And what do we mean by the real? It is a conception which we must first have had when we discovered that there was an unreal, an illusion; that is, when we first corrected ourselves. Now the distinction for which alone this fact logically called, was between an ens relative to private inward determinations, to the negations belonging to idiosyncrasy, and an ens such as would stand in the long run. The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you. Thus, the very origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception essentially involves the notion of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits, and capable of a definite increase of knowledge." (C. S. Peirce, "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities," Collected Papers 5.311)

Adoption of any method of fixing belief presupposes that one finds it unsatisfactory that one's beliefs are inconsistent: if the predictions based upon my theories clash with experience, I am prompted to reassess my theories. One explanation of why we find inconsistent beliefs unsatisfactory is that they cannot all be true;  'but here already is a vague concession that there is some one thing to which a proposition should conform'. Unless I accept the realist hypothesis, it is unclear what motivation I have for removing inconsistencies or doubting what clashes with experience. (...) The general strategy, I hope, is clear: starting from a characterization of the aim of inquiry as the settlement or fixation of belief, Peirce hopes to derive a statement of the 'propositions of the logical question' from a consideration of how certain methods of inquiry simply cannot be adopted. Simply asking 'How should I conduct my inquiries?' reveals my acceptance of propositions which help me to answer the question. (p.49)

Peirce distinguishes the acritical elements of our practice - those which cannot be subjected to logical criticism - from those which are subject to logical criticism. The importance of these acritical elements becomes clear when we notice that a rough paraphrase of Peirce's theory of truth would be that a statement is true if and only if none of its perceptual consequences clash with experience. The notions of 'consequence' and 'clash with experience' seem to be used in formulating the doctrine. If consequence is to be explained in terms of the preservation of truth [演繹的推論の帰結のこと] and if a statement clashes with experience if its known to be perceptually false, then the presence of these notions in the definition introduces circularity. The circularity seems particularly acute when we note that Peirce allows that our perceptual beliefs are fallible, and may be corrected in light of subsequent experience. (...) However, we should note here that he claims that both perceptual judgements and deductive reasoning are acritical, i.e. we cannot control the ways that we conduct them. Our logical self-control is restricted to assessing our practices of ampliative reasoning - induction and abduction. Thus, in controlling our practice of reasoning, we employ rules that attempt to find hypotheses which make coherent sense of our experience, while respecting the criteria of coherence embodied in our practice of deductive reasoning. (p.71)
→　もし真理が、経験との衝突がないことよって定式化され、また、知覚経験が真であったり偽であったりするならば、循環定義になってしまう。なぜなら、「真の知覚経験から導かれる言明は真である」、「偽の知覚経験から導かれる言明は偽である」といったような定式化は、真偽の概念を予め導入してしまっているからである。この困難は、パースにおいては、知覚経験（知覚判断）をacriticalとすることによって回避されている。知覚経験（知覚判断）は前批判的であり、真であったり偽であったりしない。ただし、acriticalだからといって、incorrigibleではない。これはabuductionと同様である。パースにとって、acriticalな判断と統御可能な判断の差はグラデーションをなしており、我々が統御できるのは、reasoningの意識的な部分のみである。

【パースの"remarkable theorem"】

The best known systems of modern quantificational logic provide counterexamples tp Peirce's '[remarkable] thoerem'. Within these logics, we can define triadic predicates in terms of dyadic ones using axioms of the form

(Rxyz≡(x)(y)(z)(Ew)(Txw & Syw & Uzw))

For example, we might define a relation R which a bears to b and c just in case there is someone of a is the aunt, b is the brother and c is the father. (p.98)
→　しかしイギリスの論理学者A. D. Kempeなどの研究を通して、パースはこのような困難の存在を知っていった。パースは、このような困難が生じるような形式的言語の採用を峻拒する。

Peirce insists that 'the combination of concepts is always two at a time' (CP 1.294). He does not permit triple bonding. (p.99)

If we form a complex conception out of two conceptions of valencies μ and ν, by linking λ bonds of one with bonds of the other, the number of unsaturated bonds in the resulting complex conception is given by

(μ + ν - 2λ) (CP 3.484)

(...) The formula has its highest value when λ=1, and it is a simple matter to verify that

(μ + ν - 2)

can equal three or more only when either μ or ν is equal to at least three. Hence, so long as all our devices for forming complex conceptions fit this rule, it is not possible to reduce triadic relations to dyadic ones. However, tetradic relations can be reduced to complexes of triadic ones, for

(3 + 3 - 2) = 4. [右辺が左辺に還元される]

And in fact, all tetradic relations can be represented as constructed in this manner. (pp.99-100)

Now we have two options. We can dismiss Peirce's result as a quirky feature of an eccentric logic which has no philosophical interest, or we can accept that the restrictions that he places upon acceptable definitions are natural and well motivated, in which case the familiar counter-examples to his theorem can be discounted. (p.100)
→　後者の選択肢を取るとして、パースがその使用を擁護するような言語に着目の対象を限定する十分な根拠を提示するには、どうすればいいか。

One possibility would be to argue that the reduction of triadic predicates to dyadic ones effected by using triple bonding is not genuine. If it could be shown that we could reduce a triadic predicate to a combination of dyadic ones by using a conception which had to be thought of as triadic, or even tetradic, the reduction would be of little interest. For example when we define the triadic relation R in terms of the three dyadic relations T, S, and U, we have to think of R as standing in the tetradic relation of 'resulting-by-triple-bonding' from T, U, and S. Hence, the definitional procedure does not show that tetradic [or triadic] relations are dispensible. On the other hand, if we think of a relation resulting by double bonding from two other relations we only have to use a triadic relation: the concepts we use in effecting the reduction are not at odds with the reductive claims that are made. Thus, the Peircean logic employs only those definitional resources that can be used in a genuine reduction of the valency of relations. This thought has some intuitive appeal, but it is difficult to find a clear sense in which (for example) a triadic or tetradic conception is exercised in the use of a statement like our axiom for the triadic relation R in the notation of familiar first order logic. (p.100)
→　もう一つの可能性は、認知の理論に訴えることである。例えば、ある二項関係Rを表象する記号Sがあるとすると、ここでの関係の結合は、必ずdouble bondingになる。これが、知覚活動を扱う限りにおいて、概念の結合をdouble bondingに限定する根拠になりうる。しかしこの場合、パースの定理の普遍性が損なわれるように思われる。

【カテゴリー論】

For the Wittgensteinian, our ability to speak for all [i.e., in a 'universal voice'] in mapping the grammar of our language is something we cannot justify, it marks a point where rational justification has come to an end. Yet, as Cavell notes [in "Aesthetic Problems in Modern Philosophy"], our ability to speak for all in this way is a necessary condition of our being able to speak at all. Similarly, for Peirce, we demand the right to go by what we find ourselves wanting to say in phenomenological inquiry; we cannot justify our claim that our 'intuitions' have universal validity. But unless they could do so, common language and the rational control of deliberation would not be possible at all. (p.110)

"In point of fact, a syllogism in Barbara virtually takes place when we irritate the foot of a decapitated frog. The connection between the afferent and efferent nerve, whatever it may be, constitutes a nervous habit, a rule of action, which is the physiological analogue of the major premiss. The disturbance of the ganglionic equilibrium, owing to the irritation, is the physiological form of that which, psychologically considered, is a sensation; and, logically considered, is the occurrence of a case. The explosion through the efferent nerve is the physiological form of that which psychologically is a volition, and logically the inference of a result." (CP 2.711)

【知覚論】

Central to Peirce's response to these difficulties [上記の真理の定義の循環性のこと] is the claim that the fundamental form of reference to existing objects involves the use of demonstrative expressions, indicies, in perceptual judgments. Subsequent inquiry may lead us to revise our conception of the object of a given perceptual judgment, but this subsequent inquiry is still anchored to reality through that perception. (p.154) →　指示対象の保存。バスカーの言う知識のintransitive dimensionに対応？

"Abductive inference shades into perceptual judgment without any sharp line of demarcation between them; or, in other words, our first premises, the perceptual judgments, are to be regarded as an extreme case of abductive inferences, from which they differ in being absolutely beyond criticism. The abductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It is an act of insight, although extremely fallible insight. It is true that the different elements of the hypothesis were in our minds before; but it is the idea of putting together what we had never before dreamed of putting together which flashes the new suggestion before our contemplation." (CP 5.181)

"When you look at it you seem to be looking at the stairs from above. You cannot conceive it otherwise. Continue to gaze at it, and after two or three minutes the back wall of the stairs will jump forward and you will now be looking at the under side of them from below, and again cannot see the figure otherwise. After a shorter interval, the upper wall, which is now nearer to you, will spring back, and you will again be looking from above. These changes will take place more and more rapidly, the aspect from above always lasting longer, until at length, you will find you can at will make it look either way." (CP 7.647)

"The perceptive judgment, and the percept itself, seems to keep shifting from one general aspect to the other and back again" (CP 5.183). These phenomena, Peirce claims, function as the "true connecting links between abductions and perceptions" (CP 5.183). →　かくしてパースは知覚と知覚判断の二元論を解消する。一般的なアスペクトを切り換えるごとに、階段の「見た目」が変わるということは、一般性が知覚そのものに潜んでおり、知覚判断だけが変わっているわけではないことを示している。知覚にも解釈が常に混入しており、abductionと同様incorrigibleではない。しかし同時に、知覚（知覚判断）はacriticalである。知覚のこのacriticalな部分を指してパースはpercipuumと呼ぶ： "The percipuum, then, is what forces itself upon your acknowledgment, without any why or wherefore, so that if anybody asks you why you should regard it as appearing so and so, all you can say is, 'I can't help it. That is how I see it.'" (CP 7.643)　percipuumを捉えることはacritical abductionである。パースは、acriticalとcontrollableの間のケースを例示することによって、その差がグラデーションをなしていることを論証している。そして、知覚のacriticalな部分（percipuum）とclashしないように信念体系を調整するのが科学的推論の役割ということになる。したがって、clash with experienceに訴える真理定義は、循環を含まない。また、そもそも信念を改訂することができるのは、indexが個物を指示しており、指示対象は信念改訂の前後を通して保存されているため。

Talk of the percipuum - fusing the percept and perceptual judgement into a whole - is an attempt, I suggest, to prevent those problems [もし知覚判断には一般性が関わっており、知覚そのものには一般性が含まれていないのだとしたら、我々がただ好き勝手に実在に対して一般的概念を宛がっているという唯名論が帰結してしまう、という問題。この場合、三性は実在ではなく我々の認知活動に属することになる] arising by rejecting an oversimple dichotomy of cognitive processes. If we can prescind the firstness of our perceptual experience from the rest (or prescind its secondness), it does not follow that we can find distinct cognitive processes: the percept-perceptual judgement distinction reflects imposing a crude cognitive model on the phenomenologically rich complex of the sensory and the conceptual which is the 'given' of perceptual experience. Thirdness is given in the percipuum, it is perceptually experienced. Our acritical judgements report what we see; they involve general classifications; and our reports of shifts in general aspect show that there are sensory manifestations of thirdness in the percipuum. (p.166)

"being at all is being in general." (CP 5.349; 3.93n)

if the specimens form a kind or natural class, they will vary continuously along some dimension. (p.175)
→　普遍者（一般的なクラス）と連続性との関連。よく分からない。

【帰納とアブダクション】

"By saying that we draw the inference provisionally, I mean that we do not hold that we have reached any assigned degree of approximation as yet, but only hold that if our experience be indefinitely extended, and if every fact of whatever nature, as fast as it presents itself, be duly applied, according to the inductive method, in correcting the inferred ratio, then our approximation will become indefinitely close in the long run; that is to say, close to the experience to come (not merely close by the exhaustion of a finite collection)" (CP 6.40) →　宇宙の片隅のunrepresentativeなサンプルであっても、その外側の（潜在的）宇宙に触れることさえできれば、推論は訂正されるし、触れなければ、それは十分長期ではない、ということになる。

"The procedure described may be called the method of anticipation; in choosing h(n) as our posit, we anticipate the case where n is the "place of convergence." It may be that by this anticipation we obtain a false value; we know, however, that a continued anticipation must lead to the true value, if there is a limit at all." (Hans Reichenbach, Experience and Prediction p.353)
→　n個の集団の中からある性質Aを持った個体がm個観測されたとする。このとき、性質Aを持った個体の比率を表すためにm/n = h(n)と置く。ライヘンバッハの言う"principle of induction"によれば、母集団の個体数をnからsに増やしたとすれば、h(s)はh(n)近傍の小さな領域に収まることを我々は期待するはずである。もし大きく外れれば、今後h(s)の近傍に収まることを期待する（信念改訂）。あるfrequencyが常に維持されるという、確実な根拠はもちろんない（ライヘンバッハはこれを"blind posit"と呼んでいる）。しかし、確率の頻度説の性質より、もしm/nが性質Aを持った個体全体の割合を表しているならば、取る母集団のサイズを大きくすればするほど、任意のεに対して、観測されるA個体の割合とm/nの差がε以下に収まるような、母集団の選択sequenceが必ず存在する（sequenceが収束する）。この原理が成り立つためにはもちろん、統計的極限が予め存在していなければならない。

"the instances excluded from being subjects of reasoning would not be experienced in the full sense of the word, but would be among these latent individuals of which our conclusion does not pretend to speak." (CP 6.42)

"man has a certain Insight, not strong enough to be oftener right than wrong, but strong enough not to be overwhelmingly more often wrong than right, into the Thirdnesses, the general elements, of Nature. An Insight, I call it, because it is to be referred to the same general class of operations to which Perceptive Judgments belong. This Faculty is at the same time of the general nature of Instinct," (CP 5.173)

【プラグマティズム】

However, the interest of the [pragmatic] principle does not hinge upon a concern with useful methodological advice. Rather, the fact that this is good advice - if Peirce is correct - reveals important truths about meaning and reality. (p.235)

That there are truths about the actual world which will never be discovered [カエサルがルビコン川を渡るとき何回くしゃみしたかとか] need not conflict with Peirce's claim that rational inquirers are fated to reach a stable consensus on all questions about the nature of reality. Reality is the mode of being of laws and general principles. Peirce makes no corresponding claim about existence, which is the mode of being of individuals and states of affairs that involve them. (p.291n)