I think it's on the channel in several separate videos. The words Q&A are in the thumbnail. here's a playlist with all the videos: kzfaq.info/sun/PLHKVjBSDqMB7tE2JApObXWaAmXfKJfK4X

Several resources. In my view a good entry point is Robert Corrington's "An Introduction to C.S. Pierce: Philosopher, Semiotician, and Ecstatic Naturalist." It does take careful reading -- only a small fragment of books in print are worth reading more than once, but I'd say this is one. Excellent scholarship. I agreed least with Corrington's last chapter BUT he makes a very credible argument toward that end -- and whatever your own conclusions there, the ingredients shown along the way are well worth assimilating. Includes addressing the question you pose. Corrington wrote his dissertation on Royce, a challenging man poorly understood today himself but with whom Peirce was personally delighted to engage. Pierce influenced significantly the later writings of Royce -- Royce a gentleman who personally rescued Pierces papers way down south at the time Peirce died, preserved (largely not entirely) in the Harvard library where Royce and James taught. Pierce, James and Royce all died within a short time of one another. When Peirce showed up in Boston too ill to take care of himself, James rushed to him declaring as he rushed to see Peirce "but I owe him everything." James helped him out financially as he could. James and Royce were regarded as two of the leading intellectuals in the USA academy, personal friends although typically identified themselves with very different schools of thought. Partly true, partly not. Depends on your level of analysis for which you're looking for similarities and differences. In any rate, distinctive thinkers who all thought quite differently -- and who learned more than most, then or today, from one another during their lives...

Indiana university has a two volume essential peirce with helpful intros to each piece.

I surely don't agree with you, Can you explain at least three moments where he could have done it without prolonging the time of the lecture? This motto, "could've said it better", usually applied to Brandom, and actually do any of the most complex, because systematic, american philosophers is just a clear proof that people seem to confuse clarity with easy philosophy. Brandom texts are actually very clear, that is, if you can at least understand how his concepts are applied in relational normative commitments and entitlements with the philosophical tradition (something most students lack knowledge of).

@@eduardofreitas3222 it's a slog, but it's worth a try. I say so as someone who sees the value of pragmatism in light of my exposure to statistics and the social sciences.

@@eduardofreitas3222 but the question is and always will be: could that be restated in simpler terms? if you think there is no value to this question, then you are not doing philosophy and for sure you are not in hegel's spirit.

@@Philover I literally can't restate this lecture in simpler terms without loosing the argumentative value of each statement. It probably could be done here and there, refining and polishing the discourse. But this is also true of any discourse of this length what so ever. However, the global aspect of the Brandom's lecture, for me, can't be put in simpler terms.

@@Philover I think the problem is, not relying on shorthands for ideas and concepts in philosophy requires us to motivate them from the ground up. It's not that this can't be done but the magnitude of a work increases for every term you pay special attention to. That being said, I find Brandom clear but not always enjoyable to read. I think despite sometimes writing in long-sentences and using many shorthands, he lingers on ideas for long enough for you to know what he has said by the end of his paragraph. He is much easier to read than to listen to in this sense.

It could, if you wanted some reduccionist oversimplifed trivial piece of crap with little interest or none. Maybe you should try it then, seems like you must be good at those sort of things.

@@KomissarLohmann you have no idea who I am, what I do, or how I think. I’m sorry you’re such a fragile little bitch.

@@hermessanhao I do not know about your credentials, but your conduct is more than enough proof to show that you have zero respect for philosophy and Knowledge and general, and I pray that you abandon your inverse vulgarism soon

@@christopherbolhuis8748 your career in comedy has been on bombed gig after another, hasn’t it?