Explain the relationship between doubt, irritation, and belief in Pierce’s philosophy

Explain the relationship between doubt, irritation, and belief in Pierce’s philosophy

Answer the following questions about Pierce and Frege:

1. Explain the relationship between doubt, irritation, and belief in Pierce’s philosophy. What is “sham,” as opposed to real doubt? What are the four methods of fixing belief? What are their advantages and disadvantages?
2. What is a “clear” idea? What is a “distinct” idea? What does Pierce believe is inadequate about these Cartesian criteria? What alternative does he propose for clarifying ideas?
3. Explain Frege’s distinction between sense and nominatum. What is his motivation for making it? How does he show the importance of the distinction in his discussion if the Morning Star and the Evening Star (his example of an “informative identity” using names)? What are the nominata of sentences in direct and indirect discourse, respectively?
4. What is Frege’s interest in discussing dependent clauses at such length in the third part of his paper? How are truth-functionality and Leibniz’s Law relevant here? Give at least two examples of types of dependent clauses that seem to violate Leibniz’s Law, and explain why they do.