> On Nov 20, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > I should note that this paper of Parker’s is tied to his book on Peirce, The > Continuity of Peirce’s Thought. It’s an interesting introduction to Peirce as > well as a focus on Peirce’s notion of continuity. I find it very good > although not as technical as some others on the same subject (like say > Zalamea’s)
One anticipation of response is in order. I recognize Paker makes a fairly controversial claim in the above. He thought key to Peirce’s continuity in all periods were the claims that there are no ultimate parts and that infinitesimals are real. However certainly in his mature period in the late 1890’s onward he did hold to the Aristotilean ideal of there being no ultimate parts. (Contra Leibniz) Also in this mature period he breaks more with Cantor partially due to a reengagement with Aristotle. Alas I’ll confess it’s been some time since I last studied all this. So I’d not feel comfortable saying much beyond that without reviewing my notes. (And perhaps checking to see what’s been done since)
----------------------------- 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 .
