Cathy Legg

Early artificial intelligence research was dominated by intellectualist assumptions, producing explicit representation of facts and rules in “good old-fashioned AI”. After this approach foundered, emphasis shifted to deep learning in neural networks, leading to the creation of Large Language Models which have shown remarkable capacity to automatically generate intelligible texts. This new phase of AI is already producing profound social consequences which invite philosophical reflection. This paper argues that Charles Peirce’s philosophy throws valuable light on genAI’s capabilities first with regard to meaning, then knowledge and truth. Firstly, I explore how Peirce’s icon/index/symbol distinction illuminates the functioning of genAI. I argue that genAI’s engineers have skilfully captured a form of symbolicity, but no other sign-kind. In lacking indexical signs, LLMs lack connection with, and accountability to, particular worldly objects. In lacking iconic signs, LLMs are insufficiently disciplined by structural – most notably logical – relationships. Then I argue that GenAI’s astounding stream of articulate, truth-semblant, yet worthless texts issues a timely reckoning to modern philosophy’s representational realism. By contrast, Peirce’s pragmatism scaffolds a rich relational realism (Gili and Maddalena 2022), which shows how meaningful concepts, and a grasp of truth, can only occur across multiple cognitive systems who are simultaneously richly related with one another, and a shared environment in which they continually act and receive feedback, within a logical space of reasons. As Peirce himself noted, “Mere knowledge, though it be systematized, may be a dead memory; while by science we all habitually mean a living and growing body of truth”.

Mainstream philosophy has seen a recent flowering in discussions of intellectualism which revisits Gilbert Ryle’s famous distinction between ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing that’, and challenges his argument that the former cannot be reduced to the latter. These debates so far appear not to have engaged with pragmatist philosophy in any substantial way, which is curious as the relation between theory and practice is one of pragmatism’s main themes. Accordingly, this paper examines the contemporary debate in the light of Charles Peirce’s habit-based epistemology. We argue both that knowing-that can be understood as a particularly sophisticated form of knowing-how, and that all bodily competencies—if sufficiently deliberately developed—can be analysed as instantiating propositional structure broadly conceived. In this way, intellectualism and anti-intellectualism are seen to be not opposed, and both true, although Peirce’s original naturalistic account of propositional structure does lead him to reject what we shall call ‘linguistic intellectualism’.

Although most contemporary philosophers of language hold that semantics and pragmatics require separate study, there is surprisingly little agreement on where exactly the line should be drawn between these two areas, and why. In this paper I suggest that this lack of clarity is at least partly caused by a certain historical obfuscation of the roots of the founding three-way distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics in Charles Peirce’s pragmatist philosophy of language. I then argue for recovering and revisiting these original roots, taking indexicality as a case-study of how certain questions connected with the distinction which are currently considered complex and difficult may be clarified by a ‘properly pragmatist pragmatics’. Such a view, I shall argue, upends a certain priority usually accorded to semantics over pragmatics, teaching that we do not work out what terms mean in some abstract overall sense and then work out to what use they are being put; rather, we must understand to what use terms are being put in order to understand what they mean.

Although certain recent developments in mendacious political manipulation of public discourse are horrifying to the academic mind, I argue that we should not panic. Charles Peirce’s pragmatist epistemology with its teleological arc, long horizon, and rare balance between robust realism and contrite fallibilism offers guidance to weather the storm, and perhaps even see it as inevitable in our intellectual development. This paper explores Peirce’s classic “four methods of fixing belief”, which takes us on an entertaining and still very pertinent tour through tenacity, authority and a priori speculation to the method of science – the only method which is both public and self-correcting. Although in the West we (mostly) proudly self-conceive as living in a ‘scientific age’, I argue that this is premature. Precisely insofar as we treat the misbehavior of governments as a harbinger of doom, we remain trapped in authoritarian modes of thinking which Peirce identified with medievalism, although modernity is increasingly quickening around us in worldwide information-sharing practices that are shaped entirely by mutual help. With this framework in mind, many tactics of recent media are most helpfully seen as belonging not to a post-truth, but a pre-truth stage of human intellectual development. Advice on this is sought from Plato, who of course also faced a world that was ‘pre-academic’.