Back to Peirce

PeirceWhile I did not start philosophically with Peirce, he has come to dominate my thought the past 20 years. Certainly figures like Heidegger are also a major force in how I think about things. Yet it’s Peirce I keep coming back to. I think that Heidegger and many who continued (more or less) in his tradition after him thought through issues Peirce didn’t. It is Peircean approaches though that I think end up clarifying many more obscure aspects of a broad Heideggarian approach. The older I get the less patient I am with the near word-mysticism that many Heideggarians adopt. It’s not that I don’t find Heidegger (or even Levinas, Derrida, or Ricouer) helpful or insightful. I do. I just find myself increasingly frustrated with the way they get discussed. (Especially those aping a Derridean style)

I’ve been very pleased at pushback within the Heideggarian tradition. Thomas Sheehan in particular has done a fantastic job pushing back at a near word mysticism where the rather straightforward meanings are obscured in layers upon layer of metaphor. 

Metaphor is useful and important. I think the literal is always dependent upon the metaphoric. But to recognize that does not entail obliqueness to the point of confusion.

Continue reading

Back for Real

OK, I said I was back and then wasn’t. This time I am for real. 


My apologies. I returned to a job I hadn’t done in a few years and then someone quit and I ended up having to do what they were doing. It’s been a busy few months.


I’m starting Mormon Metaphysics back up after a long absence. Sorry for the time away. I was having server problems but never had time to fix things until now.

I’ll return to that post series on the hard sayings a little later. Right now I have a few other posts to do. I want to do a few more politics too.