“The Spinozist state, then, transforms *passion* into the servant of reason by the rational understanding of man’s passionate nature. Philosophy is the highest power for all men, even though its teaching must be presented in a form suited for the public mind.” ~ Strauss and Cropsey
Is CP 5.189, then, the perfect form by which to communicate to the public mind the means by which to transform *passion* into the servant of reason by the rational understanding of man’s passionate nature? Why even talk about surprise and suspect if instead we can have beans and bags…or p’s and q’s? ______ Jon, I may have read wrongly but I recall Ben saying that it *is* a syllogism and Edwina saying that it *is* modus ponens. Besides, affirming the consequent is fine if two things are the same, isn't it? That is, your conjecture may be different from my conjecture. You might have the correct conjecture and I can have the wrong conjecture. But so long as I don't know that you have the right conjecture, I will accuse you of affirming the consequent. What decides except evidence that is in the future, or at the very least, a clear description of the relevance relation? Best, Jerry R On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > Ben U., Edwina, and I have already explained in various ways--what we > find in CP 5.189 is NOT *modus ponens*, it is "affirming the consequent," > which is deductively invalid; and it is NOT a syllogism in the strict > technical sense, because it expresses propositional logic, not predicate > logic. If we need a name for it, I think that we should simply call > it what Peirce himself did in the text itself--the "form of inference" for > abduction. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So, since there can be no clear correspondence between CP 5.189 and modus >> ponens, which equivalence is most consistent or are they all different >> enough to say that CP 5.189 is not modus ponens, either? >> >> >> >> If not modus ponens, and not syllogism, then what is it? Should we >> invent a new word for it or apply a very general term like “schema”, which >> is so general so as to not be terribly informative? >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
