Dear Jon, Kirsti, Clark and list, Thank you for your responses. They have been very helpful.
One thing still sits as being unsatisfying to me. With consideration to your answers, the justifications of which mostly come from the same section on common-sensism, why does the assertion warrant an asterisk by Hartshorne and Weiss? Best, Jerry R On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 4:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jerry Rhee, > > You misunderstand (misinterpret) the sentence by CSP, so your questions go > all wrong. > > On should take time to understand properly, before making inferences. CSP > talks about "something like completenes". - No use asking "What exactly is > complete...." The question is absurd. > > "something like - " is never exact! - That's the point. > > Cheers, > > Kirsti > > > > Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 9.4.2016 00:04: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> In various manuscripts on “Issues of Pragmaticism”, Peirce asserts >> >> >> “_I have worked out_ the _logic of vagueness_ with _something like >> completeness_,* but _need_ not inflict more of it upon you, at >> present.” >> >> *The asterisk denotes “Where”? (from CP 5.506, Hartshorne and >> Weiss) >> After a century of having thought about this problem, what does the >> Peirce community have to offer that inflicts more upon it to all who >> investigate? >> >> What exactly is "complete" about a logic of vagueness? >> >> Best, >> Jerry Rhee >> > >
----------------------------- 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 .
