Peircers, The "doctrine of individuals" is one of those subjects that we return to every 2 or 3 years hereabouts, just for example:
http://web.archive.org/web/20020322102614/http://www.virtual-earth.de/CG/cg-list/msg03592.html I'll try to find the excerpts and comments I posted, along with the discussions that followed at the time. Regards, Jon
CG: Doctrine Of Individuals To: Conceptual Graphs <[email protected]>, Stand Up Ontology <[email protected]>, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]>, Mary Keeler <[email protected]>, James L Piat <[email protected]>, Joseph Ransdell <[email protected]>, Tom Gollier <[email protected]>, Harley Myler <[email protected]>, Patrick John Coppock <[email protected]>, Robert G Eckert <[email protected]>, Jean-Marc Orliaguet <[email protected]>, Ken Ketner <[email protected]>, Ben Novak <[email protected]>, Arnold Shepperson <[email protected]>, Michel Balat <[email protected]> Subject: CG: Doctrine Of Individuals From: Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:14:10 -0500 Delivered-To: [email protected] Reply-To: [email protected] Sender: [email protected] ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤ 'A Simple Desultory Philippic' | In reference to the doctrine of individuals, two | distinctions should be borne in mind. The logical | atom, or term not capable of logical division, must | be one of which every predicate may be universally | affirmed or denied. For, let A be such a term. | Then, if it is neither true that all A is X nor | that no A is X, it must be true that some A is X | and some A is not X; and therefore A may be divided | into A that is X and A that is not X, which is contrary | to its nature as a logical atom. Such a term can be | realized neither in thought nor in sense. Not in sense, | because our organs of sense are special -- the eye, for | example, not immediately informing us of taste, so that | an image on the retina is indeterminate in respect to | sweetness and non-sweetness. When I see a thing, I do not | see that it is not sweet, nor do I see that it is sweet; | and therefore what I see is capable of logical division | into the sweet and the not sweet. It is customary to | assume that visual images are absolutely determinate | in respect to color, but even this may be doubted. | I know of no facts which prove that there is never | the least vagueness in the immediate sensation. | In thought, an absolutely determinate term cannot | be realized, because, not being given by sense, | such a concept would have to be formed by synthesis, | and there would be no end to the synthesis because | there is no limit to the number of possible predicates. | A logical atom, then, like a point in space, would involve | for its precise determination an endless process. We can | only say, in a general way, that a term, however determinate, | may be made more determinate still, but not that it can be | made absolutely determinate. Such a term as "the second | Philip of Macedon" is still capable of logical division -- | into Philip drunk and Philip sober, for example; but | we call it individual because that which is denoted | by it is in only one place at one time. It is a term | not 'absolutely' indivisible, but indivisible as long | as we neglect differences of time and the differences | which accompany them. Such differences we habitually | disregard in the logical division of substances. | In the division of relations, etc., we do not, | of course, disregard these differences, but we | disregard some others. There is nothing to prevent | almost any sort of difference from being conventionally | neglected in some discourse, and if 'I' be a term which | in consequence of such neglect becomes indivisible in that | discourse, we have in that discourse, | | ['I'] = 1. | | [ Note. Previously in this text, Peirce writes (CP 3.65): | | | | | I propose to denote the number of a logical term by | | | enclosing the term in square brackets, thus, ['t']. | | | | The number of an absolute term, as in the case of 'I', | | is just the number of individuals that it denotes. | ] | | This distinction between the absolutely indivisible and | that which is one in number from a particular point of view | is shadowed forth in the two words 'individual' ('to atomon') | and 'singular' ('to kath ekaston'); but as those who have | used the word 'individual' have not been aware that absolute | individuality is merely ideal, it has come to be used in | a more general sense. (CP 3.93; CE 2, 389-390). | | Charles Sanders Peirce, | "Description of a Notation for the Logic of Relatives, | Resulting from an Amplification of the Conceptions of | Boole's Calculus of Logic", | 'Memoirs of the American Academy', Vol. 9, pp. 317-378, 26 January 1870; | 'Collected Papers' (CP 3.45-149); 'Chronological Edition' (CE 2, 359-429). Incidental Musements: http://www.songfta.com/songs/songindex.html http://www.songfta.com/songs/pssb-asdp.html http://imv.aau.dk/~jfogde/lyrics/parsley.html http://members.nbci.com/elstongunn/simple.html http://www.songfta.com/songs/X0008_asimpledesultory.html http://www.stockmail.ru/~simon/acc/acc.asp?title=a-simple-a http://www.stockmail.ru/~simon/acc/acc.asp?title=a-simple-b More, Later, Jon Awbrey ¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
-- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
----------------------------- 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 .
