Which of Peirce's Categories are you

Odradek

I'm a Thirdness

glennmagusharvey

dafuq is Peirce's Categories

Tachyon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Peirce)

glennmagusharvey

Ugh...Wikipedia articles on philosophy...the one thing that's more incomprehensible than Wikipedia articles on advanced math topics.

So are these...categories of ideas based on functionality, it seems?

(And how would one be a certain category, if these are categories of ideas?)

Obā-san

i've found that once i learned a wee bit of calc that i could understand a lot of wikipedia's advanced math shit

Previous Calica

the category of modules over the universal enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra

Imipolex G

Giving that article a quick look, I would guess myself to be a Firstness

Miss Miko Mayonegg

Philosophy doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially when I'm on oxycodone.

Vriska

I'm whichever category doesn't care which category they are.

Sredni Vashtar

Firstness. It was once a running joke among my friends how often I used the word "vague."

Sredni Vashtar

(Also, calling it: "Odradek Wins Best Cosmo Quiz 2014.")

glennmagusharvey

Miko said:

Philosophy doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially when I'm on oxycodone.

I don't have to be on oxycodone for that to happen.

Miss Miko Mayonegg

:3

glennmagusharvey

I mean, I get that philosophy is about discussing values and meaning and how we determine them.  I just get really turned off by the overwhelming use of esoteric jargon.  And the icing on the cake is that the jargon can't be related to either mathematical or physical concepts, which are things with well-defined rules and possibilities for relationships.

Miss Miko Mayonegg

I feel the same.

Obā-san

it's not all that bad

you just have to read things a few times and then think about it and then come back to it, and with a fair amount of practice it becomes second nature

it's kinda like... word math.

Sredni Vashtar

Exactly.

Granted, the jargon sometimes feels like it's just there to make concepts look more sophisticated than they are, but more often then not it's an attempt to condense an idea, like parentheses in a math equation or summat.

Odradek

Here's a blog post I posted once that Tachyon found helpful.

glennmagusharvey

^ My net is slow right now so I'll check this out in a bit.  Thanks anyway.

I understand that the jargon exists for a reason, and isn't meant to be off-putting to newbies/casuals (so to speak).  Probably the better comparison would be to mathematical operators and symbols, such as the derivative or the integral.  That said, a key difference from math seems to be that -- correct me if I'm wrong -- philosophy involves derived principles to explain and group ideas, to be applied to other situations and to be evaluated against assumptions, while mathematics estalishes first principles and builds on them to find emergent properties.

(Of course now I'm wading right into philosophy myself, specifically the branch about how we learn and understand ideas.  I forgot its name at the moment...)

Edit: That article...seems to be about the difficulties of reading the works of various philosophers.  I guess?  Not sure what Tachyon found helpful about it, though I'm definitely not at the stage of actually reading any philosophers' works yet.