List, Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Clark Goble wrote:
> I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where > structures are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in > itself without relations. > >From my perspective, this argument, ignores the nature of nature - that is, of >part whole relationships, known as mereology in logic and philosophy and as >"scaling" in physics. A noun is what? a part of a sentence? an object? a singularity? a relative? a grammatical structure? If an atom is a noun, does it inherently have a structure? When was the concept of the structure of an atom introduced into science? philosophy? If a molecule is a noun, is it a "firstness"? does it inherently have a structure? Is modal logic necessary to describe the relationship between atoms and molecules? Is the inherence of "thing in itself" necessary for this relation? In short, does a concept of "firstness", as a "thing in itself" inherently require a metaphysical view of all nouns? If a unit is a firstness, then: The union of units unifies the unity. Is this logically True? or False? What is your reasoning for your conclusion? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
