philo peirce

[12] Do we have an intuitive self-consciousness ?
Charles S. Peirce, Collected Papers vol. 5 Book 2 Question 2

In the text that is presented here, Charles Peirce – a 19th century American philosopher and semiologist (which is the study of linguistic signs, being spoken or non-spoken) - interrogates himself (and, by extension, ourselves) to the real basis of self-consciousness. Being known for his influence over Pragmatism in Philosophy, we can find his inclinations in this essay. Peirce starts his work by saying that self-consciousness needs to be separated from internal sense and pure apperception. But what is apperception ? It is the idea of assimilating an idea by processing it through the knowledge we already possess. What happened, and remain within ourselves – the accumulation of experiences. “I know that I exist. The question is, how do I know it ?” - this is what he then asks, at the very beginning of his interrogation over the whole process of self awareness. This could seem to be a fair question – how can I be sure that I exist ? Cogito ergo sum wrote Descartes – I think, therefore I am. But is the action of thinking the only way to be sure of my very own existence ? Can I only trust my brain and spirit when it comes to feeling my own self-consciousness ? It appears that no, through Peirce’s sayings – for example, cognitions (physical perceptions) are also a way to deal with the self-consciousness. This is why he then focuses on the case of children and their relationship to their self-conscience – how they get it, to what extent, by which means ? As it can be seen, Peirce’s whole essay relies on the example of children and their growing inner self – he seems to be very assured of what he is stating, and uses many examples to feed his point. His work is so well polished that it might be difficult to go against it, or to give opposite arguments as he gives himself to the endless debate of nature versus nurture – for his are mostly scientific or biologic (such as the use of language, assimilation of sounds and movement of the lips and the body, sociability). But he also makes an interesting statement that should be discussed : at some point, in the paragraph 235, he mentions “ignorance and error”, and how they are “all that distinguish our private selves from the absolute ego of pure apperception”. What could be said about it ? Maybe we could go a bit further, as he didn’t really deepen it.

When Peirce mentioned ignorance and error as the notions that separated the “private self” from the “absolute ego of apperception”, it is an interesting part since it is the first time that he talk about such thing as “private selves”. What could it stand for ? It first appears that it might be a way to opposite the “me” that is inner, private – maybe a reference to the id and the sur ego Sigmund Freud talked about in his work on psychoanalysis, since it is the part of our self that is hidden, the immersed part of the “icerberg” that is the human mind. For him, it seems that ignorance and error are fundamentals to the process of understanding the self, as they appear to be complementary. I gain conscience of myself because I know that I lack understanding of myself. How could I be so sure that I exist if I wasn’t even able to question my very own existence ? The fact that I have the possibility to doubt myself appear to be a way to apprehend the “I”. Just like errors. Being able to make them, unable me to gain feelings of my growth, or pain – which is linked with cognition. Peirce mentions it in his text at the paragraph 233, when the children burns himself with a shovel which he was told was hot – he denied it and tried to prove it by touching it, thus making an error that made him feel something, pain, which gave him a proof of his conscience through both physical and verbal testimony.
In the following paragraph (236), he says : “and we know them [the children] to possess at that age powers of understanding sufficient to enable them to infer from ignorance and error their own existence.” This sentence ends to enhance the point that was made in the upper paragraph – the self, and these two ideas are complementary, and go alongside each other. As the “self” appear to be a thematic hard to trust or to get, maybe its purpose is to be constantly challenged and searched ? If the children have to “find” it, as they do not immediately gain conscience of their own self, can we really say that I can trust my “self” ? Or we could also wonder if the “self” is not made to grow at the very same moment than us ? What if, at birth, children were selfless and gained it through time and events ? As it has been said, in their first years, they do not process sound the same way as adults do, for them, a sound is just sound – they don’t see it as a manifestation from the existence of the Other, or the World. Maybe they gain conscience of the “self” at the very same time they gain conscience of the World, and the Other ? What if my self resided in the way the World perceives me ? “Hell is other people” said Jean-Paul Sartre. Maybe he was right, after all – if my “self” resides in the Other’s eye, they decide of my appearance and energy.

As it seems that Peirce’s work is in favor of the thematic of Nurture, we could say that the proper of the self might appear to be constantly changing, malleable – just like Rousseau showed us with his metaphor of Glaucus’ statue figure, the human is constantly evolving and getting further from its last form. We mentioned the work of Freud as well – his whole studies rely on the fact that it is not able to fully know the “self”. Thus, we could discuss the very nature of the self, as it seems that many interpretations of it are possible. Do you think that the self is innate, and already given at birth ? Or do you more think that it is something that is more acquired, and is built as time passes through many factors like environment, events in life etc. ?