Broadening Peirce's Phaneroscopy: Part Two

In the first part of this essay (The Pluralist 7.2, Summer 2012, pp. 1-29), I argued against the Narrow Conception of phaneroscopy by showing that it is not to be found in Peirce's writings and that several passages in Peirce's writings indicate the Narrow Conception is false. As a consequence, we must broaden our understanding of phaneroscopy's aim. In this part, I shall argue that we should broaden our understanding of phaneroscopy's method, that is, our understanding of phaneroscopic observation, description, and analysis.

However, before proceeding, I should reply to one claim that has cropped up every now and then. Some interpreters of Peirce have commented in correspondence with me that Peirce's phaneroscopy is not analytic but synthetic. This is simply false, as Peirce very clearly states that phenomenology "make[s] the ultimate analysis of all experiences the first task to which philosophy must apply itself" (CP 1.280; emphasis added). Moreover, insofar as phaneroscopy is concerned with discovering the "indecomposable elements" of the phaneron—that is to say, those elements of the phaneron that are "incapable of being separated by logical analysis into parts" (MS 908.5)—it follows that phaneroscopy must analyze the phaneron by separating the decomposable from the indecomposable elements. Furthermore, in "On a New List of Categories"— widely regarded as the origins of Peirce's phaneroscopy—Peirce refers to "the conceptions which, according to our analysis, are the most fundamental ones . . . in the sphere of logic" (W 2.59; emphasis added). So, phaneroscopy is concerned with the analysis of the phaneron. At any rate, it would be absurd to suggest that phaneroscopy is synthetic since, as explained in part one, the phaneron is already one, a unity.

Indeed, Short correctly notes that phaneroscopy "observes, describes, and analyses the phaneron" (Peirce's Theory 68). But to what does each of these amount?

De Tienne

Let's begin by noting that Peirce clearly does think phaneroscopy involves observation, description, and analysis. He writes: "There is nothing quite so directly open to observation as phanerons. . . . What I term phaneroscopy is that study which, supported by direct observation of phanerons and generalizing its observations, signalizes several very broad classes of phanerons" (CP 1.286). He states: "Phaneroscopy is the description of the phaneron" (CP 1.284). Above, I provided quotations that state phaneroscopy is concerned with analyzing the phaneron.

However, it is not clear what observation, description, and analysis involve. Consider, for example, André De Tienne's position. He stresses the use of the suffix "-scopy" in contrast to "-logy," noting, "the suffix -scopy introduces the idea of observation, while the suffix -logy introduces the idea of discourse, a corpus of systematized arguments" ("Is Phaneroscopy" 6). He continues to state:

Phaneroscopy is a work of observation: it "studies" what seems but does not "state" what appears, does not make assertions. Assertions are judgments "about" something, and they usually attribute to that something different qualities, such as reality or unreality, and truth or falsity. The phaneroscopist refrains from making such judgments. He only acknowledges the manifest qua manifest.

("Is Phaneroscopy" 6)

Crucially, De Tienne distinguishes between two kinds of observation. The first is observation of the lived phaneron. With respect to this kind of observation, De Tienne acknowledges that "as a matter of principle and of fact, the observer cannot possibly describe directly the lived phaneron, since he is completely embroiled in it" ("Is Phaneroscopy" 7). However, there is a second kind of observation: observation of the objectified phaneron. He writes:

Il y a deux manières d'«observer» un phanéron. La première . . . est l'acte par lequel l'esprit reconnaît la manifestation de ce qui apparaît sans aucune représentation médiatrice. . . . Donnons à ce type d'apparence le nom de phanéron vécu.

Il est maintenant une autre manière d'observer un phanéron, celle du phanéroscopiste. Ce dernier, selon Peirce, est principalement occupé à décrire le phanéron. . . . Le phanéron objectivé (par opposition au phanéron vécu) devient, de cette manière, le produit d'une séparation mentale ou...