Jon, I see what you mean, but I think "anti-psychologism" is accurate enough, given Peirce's frequently vociferous statements that logic should NOT draw principles from psychology. But maybe we should wait until next week for that discussion, after Jeff Kasser leads off a new thread on Chapter 2.
By the way, I should remind everyone that for automatic archiving purposes, each thread needs to have its own subject line, and only posts with that exact subject line will be included in the archive of that thread. Frederik has started this thread with the subject line "Natural Propositions", which is appropriate enough for an introductory thread which gives an overview of the whole book. The subject line for Chapter 2 will need to be more specific, as will all the others. That will also make it easier for all of us to follow threads that we are particularly interested in. One more general point: this seminar is meant to happen concurrently on two lists (peirce and biosemiotics), so participants who are subscribed to both lists will send their posts to both. If you are only subscribed to one, the other list will not see your posts, unless someone copies them there (embedded in a reply, for instance). Jon, your comment on "biologism" might be of interest to those on the biosemiotics list, but again I think we might wait for a later thread to get into it (Chapter 4 perhaps, which is about "naturalization". gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 1-Sep-14 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Natural Propositions Re:Frederik Stjernfelt At:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13825 Frederik, One small point that I find myself making on a periodic basis: I think it is better to describe Peirce's take on logic as "non-psychologism" rather than anti-psychologoism", the main thing being that logic is a normative rather than a descriptive science. The use of "anti-psychologism" tends to drag in all sorts of implications that are alien to Peirce's perspective on the relation between the two. On a related point, especially pertinent to the current run of the bi(o)semiotics literature, is whether "biologism" in logic be just as bad a diversion from the course of Peirce's semiotics and logic as "psychologism" ever was. Or, to put it more positively, what would it take to place the biological and psychological implementations of sign relations and inquiry processes in their proper perspective? Regards, Jon
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
