Brandom, Peirce, and the overlooked friction of contrapiction

Abstract

Robert Brandom holds that what we mean is best understood in terms of what inferences we are prepared to defend, and that such a defence is best understood in terms of rule-governed social interactions. This manages to explain quite a lot. However, for those who think that there is more to making correct/incorrect inferences than obeying/breaking accepted rules, Brandom's account fails to adequately capture what it means to reason properly. Thus, in an effort to sketch an alternative that does not rely primarily on peer pressure, I draw on the work of C. S. Peirce. Peirce argued that, when we reason, we manipulate abstract diagrams in order to observe what results. Since some manipulations are barred by the self-same nature of the diagrams, I try to show that this qualitative incompatibility, which I dub "contrapiction," is a good (non-social) reason to regard some reasoning as bad.Contra Rorty, we cannot do everything-and more-with the Wittgensteinian notion of language-game that the pragmatists were trying to do with experience.

Diagrams and alien ways of thinking

“…7, for example) while the latter cannot (for more on Peirce's type/token/ tone distinction, see Champagne, 2018a, pp. 21-27; for more on contrapiction, see Champagne, 2016a).…”

Why Images Cannot be Arguments, But Moving Ones Might

“…Tellingly, no submission succeeded. Champagne (2016a) argues that this impossibility (which he dubs "contrapiction") is the main source of diagrammatic reasoning's normative power, insofar as some qualities or tones simply resist being squeezed into one token. For more on the type/token/tone distinction, see Champagne (2018a, pp.…”

“…In Western philosophy, this has traditionally been glossed as a linguistic activity. However, when humans couch their claims in the right visual medium, they give themselves the means to visually justify what they say (Champagne 2016a). Anyone-friend or foe-can check whether Wegener's conclusion really follows, by manipulating the image.…”

Sound Reasoning (Literally): Prospects and Challenges of Current Acoustic Logics

“…Non-overlapping frequencies can be heard simultaneously, but those tones cannot be both heard and silent at the same time (cf. [3]). Thus, because a logic of sounds must work on a temporal axis, I submit that, on One quick fix would be to assign a distinct tone for negation.…”