Stephen,
Peirce did not say, and I presume would not say, that "things are so because
they are called so."
But he did say this (CP 6.341, 1909):
[[ The mode of being of the composition of thought, which is always of the
nature of the attribution of a predicate to a subject, is the living
intelligence which is the creator of all intelligible reality, as well as of
the knowledge of such reality. It is the entelechy, or perfection of being. ]]
Of course that too is taken out of context, but the context is accessible to
Peirceans.
Gary f.
} Sometimes I am, sometimes I think. [Paul Valéry] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Stephen C. Rose [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23-Oct-15 10:55
To: Gary Fuhrman <[email protected]>
Cc: Peirce List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things
"things are so because they are called so."
That does sound a trifle nominalist. Would not Peirce say something like
things are so because over time a community has concluded that the inferences
of persons multiply to into of consensus. Perhaps that is what you mean as
well. In which case I am guilty, like Rep. Jordan, oe extracting a sentence to
represent a whole thought.
I think some things are so, the most important ontological things, because they
are so, independent of what anyone calls them. I think Peirce agrees.
Books <http://buff.ly/15GfdqU> http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art:
<http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl> http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: <http://buff.ly/1wXADj3> http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
-----------------------------
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 .
