DiLeo, J. (1991) Peirce's Haecceitism. Transactions
of the Charles S Peirce Society 27(1):
79--109.
Dave Harris
Peirce used the term haecceity to discuss
individuation, and there are connections with
these more general notion of the categories.
Like Deleuze, he borrowed from Scotus.
The context was the debates in the early 14th
century on the ontological status of
universals. Plato had argued that there were
universal natures independent of both the
characteristics of particulars and of conceptions
of the general in the mind. Scotus agreed
with Aristotle that essential natures must be
connected to particulars in reality, as some kind
of 'metaphysical constituent of the things whose
natures they are' (81). However, particulars
had to have further distinguishing
characteristics. This led to 'a principle of
individuation that will allow for distinctions
among particulars', and possible candidates for
this principle included 'negation, existence,
quantity, matter'. Scotus believed that only
individuals actually existed, so their beings had
to be investigated in order to end with a
hierarchy with God at the summit. There must
be something in the individual which makes it both
universal and singular, but this could be neither
empirical nor take the form of a category.
Instead, individuals could be best seen as modes
of the common nature of individual things, not
just found in individuals in existence.
However, we cannot just discover these by
examining the 'predicates' [empirical properties?]
of actual things, since common nature is a
concept, a principle found in the mind—this
principle of individuation is haecceitas.
Scotus thought that the way it worked was to
'contract' common nature, which omits the
empirical principles of negation and quantity and
so on. The haecceity is not a thing which
can be combined with other things, but a principle
of differentiation, a special kind of thing: 'the
haecceitas of Socrates is "Socratesness", and not
"Socrates"' (82).
The principle of differentiation is formally
distinct from the nature of the thing, and is
based on some conception of objective
'formalitates' [some kind of form or
potential form?] which a thing possesses—in
effect, haecceitas is not separate from essence
except formally. What this amounts to is
that the human nature of Socrates and his
Socratesness 'are not two things, but two
realities which are formally distinct and have
numerical unity [that is, appear in the same
empirical unit]' (83). Beings are composite
things, and haecceitas represents the last stage
of concrete existence, something which 'restricts
the specific form...and completes it by seeing the
being as "this" being'. At the moment, this
quality is known only to god, but it might be
knowable by humans in the future, if intellect
becomes independent of sense perception.
Having only a limited knowledge empirically of it,
it must remain as a logical requirement because we
know there are different individuals, although we
tend to see this as arising from 'accidental
differences as being in different places at the
same time, or having different colored hair or
eyes'. However, we cannot generalize to
assume that there is only one general form of
'thisness'.
Peirce began to get interested at an early stage,
although he was aware of the difficulties of
seeming to just add some principle to explain
phenomena. It was easier in a way to accept
that the principle was surplus [because we already
have the usual way to describe individuals as
being particular combinations of more general
elements, much as sociologist do when explaining a
unique biography as a combination of social class,
gender, location and the rest?]. However, he saw
haecceity as necessary. The term became a
part of his attempt to explain the existence of
things. The first attempts he made involved
a list of categories to describe 'a logical
analysis of cognition and judgement' (85), which
would explain any attempt to classify and object
of thought or experience, but which would also be
common to every day thinking. Peirce agreed
that the idea was to simplify sensuous impressions
to arrive at conceptions which were essential to
explain the unified nature of consciousness.
The categorization starts with conceptions of the
present which are nearest to sensations [as in
sense data]. These are unified by
propositions, those which connect predicates to
subjects and which therefore imply being.
The proposition "the stove is black" links the
substance, the stove, with some quality,
blackness, with which it is inseparable.
Blackness becomes a predicate. The verb 'is'
reduces and simplifies the confused nature of
sensation. In this way, propositions always
refer to substances and to being, as the only way
to apply the predicates. They also link
being to the subject of the proposition, although
these were originally separated.
Peirce wanted to connect the steps with further
basic conceptions or categories, intermediate
categories, which he originally saw as 'accidents'
(86). The intermediate categories are,
first, 'quality'[specifying a quality of the
substance which can be united with it, so as to
link being and substance—the quality of blackness
belongs to the stove, and since blackness is
something that is, being and substance are
linked?]; 'relation' [a psychological process
whereby qualities are understood by being similar
or contrasting to ones that we know already.
This is a key operation in abstraction, where
things are referred to their "correlates" in
Peircian terminology]; 'representation'[every
proposition refers to an 'interpretant', which has
the effect of uniting the '"manifold of the
substance itself" (87)—enabling us to name the
thing as a black stove?].
There is a later modification to this list of
categories, derived from quite different methods,
ones that dispensed with th the basic conceptions
of substance and being. Instead, we now have
something that connects experience and
logic. Peirce's phenomenology produces
categories arising from whatever seems or appears
to be the case, and these categories are then
modified using '" inductive examination of the
methods and tentative conclusions of the positive
special sciences"'. We still get similar
intermediate categories, but there are changes, a
turn to a more empirical approach, arising both
from a grasp of the positive sciences and
quantification [a development of logic using
Boolean propositions -- so says Peitarinin
in a very useful piece] , and a residual
subjectivism. The categories themselves
become a series of logical relations 'monadic,
dyadic, and triadic'. These are assumed to
be universal and to cover all logical relations,
including those involved in the sign. They
cover every predicate of the proposition.
They appear in all experiences and statements
about things, although one might dominate of any
particular time.
Peirce says we could change the names of the
categories to quality, reaction and mediation, but
he now prefers '"Firstness, Secondness, and
Thirdness"'(88) because these would avoid
confusion as entirely new words. They refer
both to logical classification of relations, and
also classification of experience: all phenomena
or experience have these 'three modes of being or
aspects specifiable under these categories'.
Firstness is a mode of being which is self
contained, 'without reference to anything else',
simple and without parts, without any element saw
relations found in any 'total feeling', something
'indecomposible, irreducible and indescribable,
monadic aspect of the phenomenom'. It is
both a possibility and potentiality.
Secondness is an idea of fact, something that
resists, something in the here and now that
resists our will, as in brute facts. It is
linked dyadically [in opposition to our
understandings?]. Its a 'factual
character... consists in pure individuality,
excluding both generality (universality) and
possibility'(89), with irreducible
characteristics. Thirdness moves from
experience to cognition to relate Firstness and
secondness, using operations such as 'meaning,
representation, mediation, and thought', involving
generality and law.
Objects are only known through their properties
which makes them subject to 'the Identity of
Indiscernibles'[one of Leibniz's ideas—good old
Wikipedia renders it as saying that if two
different objects have all their properties
in common, they are indiscernible]. [We
want to avoid this if we are interested in real
individuality, so...] propositions that have terms
like 'this is black' are ambiguous [could be
indiscernible] unless we can specify the
properties of 'this', or examine the actual
object. One way of doing this latter is to
see what has gone on with preceding signs, which
have already specified the object referred to by
'this'. Where they are not specific, the
signs are considered to be incomplete. If we
tried to spell out all the properties of the
object, however, we still leave the possibility
that it is not unique, and may have identical
indiscernibles. This problem was remedied by
Peirce turning to an understanding of
quantification [as above].
This involves claiming that terms like 'this' must
refer to 'an existent individual'(90). Terms
like 'this' become signs 'that awaken and direct
the attention'. In particular, the index
denotes a thing directly and forces it on our
attention without describing its qualities.
Any object denoted by an index has thisness, and
'"distinguishes itself from other things by its
continuous identity and forcefulness"'. This
object is a haecceity. This is how things
become unambiguous and distinguishable. We
are alerted to them by terms such as 'this, that,
here, now', and these terms denote an object
rather than any qualities of the object. Peirce
turned to Scotus for this conception, and says
that the haecceitas is 'much the same as his
category of Secondness' (91) in that it forces
itself on our thinking. There's a debate
about the exact relationship, but this
characteristic is what they have in common.
[I wonder if this is implied in Deleuze and
Deleuze and Guattari as well, that the haecceity
can produce epiphany precisely because it imposes
itself like this and makes us think again].
The term is described as a '"brutal fact that will
not be questioned"'(92), pure secondness,
producing a '"shock of reaction between the ego
and nonego... The double consciousness of
effort and resistance... Something which
cannot properly be conceived"', since our
conceptions always involved generalizations and
this would then missed the specificity.
However, haecceity does not define Secondness
entirely, but is its 'material aspect'. We
can certainly experience the effects of haecceity
and appreciate its '"insistency"'.
Thus it arises in experience and only exists in
experience, for both Scotus and Peirce.
However, whatever exists is individual for Peirce,
and existence always involves reaction to our
experience. We discover individuals when
they react against us [and therefore we discover
existence? And the other way around?] It is
the only way in which we get close to discovering
individuality, since we can never prove it
logically. This means that existence has a
dyadic structure, something opposing our
experience, something struggling for existence by
opposing, resisting or shocking [other things as
well as us? It looks like it means reaction
to a {human?} subject]. We only experience
it in this form of reaction, as dyadic form.
The affirmation of the individuals is a recent
development in Peirce, as is his existence that
particulars and universals 'have different modes
of being' (94), secondness and thirdness
respectively. There are also different kinds
of existence, of actions or volitions, of human
and other forms of time, of fiction or art -- and
other possible universes. Each of these
different kinds 'is to be understood as an example
of haecceity' (95), because they all offer a
existence and individuality, 'and
thinghood'. They all involve something
other, not ego, in opposition to understanding.
There's also a relationship with space [a
dictionary entry by Peirce suggests that any
portion of space can be an individual, no matter
how extended, because space itself can
individualize. Logically, different spaces
for locations will always differentiate otherwise
indiscernible objects. Space therefore
becomes '"nothing but the institutional
presentation of the conditions of reaction, or of
some of them"']. Space can be considered to
be some underlying law like continuum and thus to
possess Thirdness, but it must also be capable of
being individuated. As usual, we look to
whether it is capable of reaction [in this case a
reaction to the suggestion of
indiscernibility?]. Time does this too [?]
[The argument seems to run back woods in
suggesting that because haecceitism is necessary,
so a spatial dimension is necessary, extension in
space, which 'allows for things to have identical
properties' (96) while not being identical.
Indeed, persistence or continuity through time and
space makes something distinct from everything
else. This means that haecceity is not
dependent on the properties of an object, nor any
qualities as such, since these can always be
shared with indiscernibles.
Haecceity could be internal or external, despite
the fact that we usually experience it as
something external, factual. However, we
need to precede further to make sure, using
various '"tests of externality"' (97), to infer
haecceity in contrast to the usual way in which it
is detected by perception. There may be some
ambiguity here, also found in the notion of
Secondness, which seems to be present directly to
perception, as well as being known through
interpretants. In this way, Peirce becomes a
realist, believing in existence as well as being
and reality. While reality is not dependent
on thought, existence '"means reaction with the
environment"'.
That we can grasp haecceity in experience, in a
way that does not involve concepts, experience
must consist of events which are non
qualitative. It means that things do not
just depend on having a set of properties or
qualities—haecceity is not a property and thus
cannot be abstracted from a thing. However,
there remained a possibility that haecceity could
at least confer qualitative or descriptive
elements to experience. However, Peirce
argues that the particularity of the facts
themselves determines whether or not they possess
qualities. The same applies to individuals
[the alternative seems to involve some challenge
to the principle of contradiction and excluded
middle—pass, 98] Here, Peirce is rejecting Scotus
and the notion of contraction of, natures into
individuals—it is too nominalistic for a
pragmatist. What this means is that
Secondness cannot be reduced to a combination of
Firstness and Thirdness, nor can Thirdness be
contracted to Secondness: individuality and
haecceity produce secondness. Perception
must be separate and essential to
epistemology. [?].
For Peirce and his 'exact logic' [see Pietairin
again --looks a bit like a proposition needing to
spell out exactly how its terms are defined and
specified, a bity like a closure principle in
programming] , individuals can only be distinct
from one another by being haecceities; by having
different qualities in themselves; by being in 1
to 1 correspondence to individuals that are
distinct from one another in the first two
senses. It is clear that he values the
first, and owes a debt to Scotus.
Haecceitism is found in modern philosophies
[although Deleuze is not mentioned], 99-100.
Peirce's late work is interesting in developing a
family of logical diagrams: alpha for systems
referring to propositional logic; beta dealing
with the logic of quantification; gamma claiming
to represent logical relations in general.
The first two deal with the 'actual existent
world'(100), but the latter invokes the notion of
other possibilities, other universes, possible
worlds, the logic of the possible or modal logic,
relating to a logical space, and this is been
developed by subsequent philosophers. The
connection between these developments and
haecceitism is a matter of debate.
|
|