<\/p>\n
Highlights<\/h2>\n
Since we now have custom URLs<\/a> for every network, this is the first post where I\u2019ll use them as links you can easily visit by clicking on the screenshots.<\/p>\n Below are snapshots of our newcomers, Reid<\/a>, Barthes<\/a>, Habermas<\/a>, and Varela<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Adding Reid was the result of my period of concentrating on philosophy of perception, which also led to additions\/revisions for Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Mill, and many others representing various positions like skepticism, direct\/indirect realism, phenomenalism, etc.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n I found it very interesting that Berkeley and Reid have both talked very specifically about the arbitrariness of the signification relationships between \u201cvisible figures\u201d and \u201ctangible figures\u201d in perception, using the analogy of the arbitrariness of the relationships between words and the objects they refer to \u2013 a central idea in later philosophy of language and semiotics which would be explored by many figures like Peirce, Saussure, or Grice. Berkeley argues that these significations are instituted by God\u2019s language <\/i>of nature, and Reid says they are the effect of our original constitution<\/i> instead of habit. They even use the terms natural sign <\/i>and artificial sign. <\/i>I was surprised to discover that these ideas I had long known from Peirce\u2019s and Saussure\u2019s semiotics had earlier expressions in philosophy of perception 150 years prior.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Speaking of signification, we have some new\/edited sentences around the issue of proper names.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n After reading Embodied and Enactive Approaches to Cognition<\/i><\/a> by Shaun Gallagher, I made many updates around 4E (extended, embedded, embodied, enactive) cognition; I introduced Varela, updated Clark and their connections to phenomenology and pragmatism \u2013 it was exciting to see the seeds of the extended mind<\/i> concept in Peirce and Dewey!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I reread Leibniz\u2019s work and made lots of revisions\/additions. This paper<\/a> by Julia Jorati was helpful in confirming my understanding about his brand of theological compatibilism.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Enlightenment has received some support with new sentences from its earliest and latest defenders.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I had read Harry Frankfurt\u2019s On Bullshit <\/i><\/a>in 2012 and loved it. His passing in July made me realize that his influential distinction from that essay was missing here \u2013 it was also in the same spirit as some of Arendt\u2019s ideas I\u2019ve recently added.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I tried to summarize Davidson\u2019s Swampman argument (from \u201cKnowing One\u2019s Own Mind<\/a>\u201d). Even though \u201cthe attention Swampman has generated is quite disproportionate to his extremely brief appearance in Davidson\u2019s writing\u201d according to Malpas<\/a>, it\u2019s one of the popular denizens of the Land of Gedankenexperimente.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I also reread Dennett\u2019s \u201cReal Patterns<\/a>\u201d after years, carefully mapping his explicit references to other philosophers (Quine, Fodor, Davidson, Rorty, and Paul Churchland). This resulted in an informative network about his position regarding realism\/instrumentalism. (Dennett doesn\u2019t like labels, as he implies in the final sentences: \u201cNow, once again, is the view I am defending here a sort of instrumentalism or a sort of realism? I think that the view itself is clearer than either of the labels, so I shall leave that question to anyone who still finds illumination in them.\u201d)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Let\u2019s end with a meta-update: After I finished the update on Sartre and Beauvoir, I remembered there was a screenshot of this region in a 2018 Open Culture post<\/a> about the project. Seeing the 2018 and 2023 versions together makes for a good illustration of what I mean when I say this is a never-ending work-in-progress.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/reid.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/barthes.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/habermas.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/varela.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/directrealism.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/phenomenalism.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/semiotics.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/propernames-2.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/extendedmind.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/leibniz_compat.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/enlightenment-1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/posttruth.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/swampman.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/patterns.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/sartre-camus-2-e1539147254350.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.denizcemonduygu.com\/philo\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/sartre_etal.png\")
<\/p>\n