Hmm. My understanding of the scholastic 'universal' (the Aristotelian, to which
I am assuming Peirce refers) is quite different from the specific actualities
of genes and natural selection. These two are actualities and very specific
despite their having observable commonalities with, eg, a species. They exist
'per se' while my understanding of the universal is its nature as an abstract
potential which is articulated, but never completely, as embedded within an
actual instantiation.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Frederik Stjernfelt
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; Peirce Discussion Forum
(PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu)
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 1:40 PM
Subject: [biosemiotics:7958] Re: Natural Propositions:
Dear Edwina, lists -
The neo-Darwinist conception of evolution works nicely as an example, exactly
because it is so stripped-down.
Even a concept as naked as that refers to real universals - as Edwina writes,
to "genes", and "natural selection".
F
Den 18/01/2015 kl. 19.30 skrev Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
:
Stan and Frederik: I think that you both are talking about different
issues. It's not whether or not evolution is a 'real process', or even about
the notion of 'realism' vs 'nominalism' (whether one uses the scholastic or
non-scholastic definition of those two terms). I think Stan was referring to
the very definition of 'what is evolution'. The neoDarwinians have a very
simple (simplistic?) definition which rejects any notion of there being
'potentialities', 'probabilities' or 'possibilities' . There's the status quo
genes; there's natural selection; and that's it.
Edwina
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
