Hi Jon,
No contradictions here… Regards what the question has to do with the thread topic, I was simply trying to give you a definite experience for what “determination” ought to mean, where the term comes to our cognition and grows not only through history but also from our interaction with the object. The experience is given as a first sailing in the previous thread that illustrates how the symbol of CP 5.189/syllogism is determined. As per whether or not B is or is not the commens, if we define *cause* as: ““*out of which” something emerges is one kind of cause of the thing in question*”~Strauss then, the cause of the meaning of “determine” is out of the minds of the community, which can be said to be the commens, or of how we interpret what Peirce is said to have said. But really, is he the final ultimate decider of truth? What would Peirce say on the matter? In summary, I have no objections to what you just said above and appreciate the quote from the Neglected Argument. :) Best, Jerry R On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > Jerry R., List: > > What determines whether CP 5.189 is or is not a syllogism? >> > > What does this question have to do with the thread topic? > > >> Is it predicated in the mind of the commens? That is, in B? >> > > B is not "the mind of the commens," it is--per EP 2.441, as quoted > below--the "circumstances of [C's] occurrence"; i.e., the major premiss > (Rule) of a valid deductive syllogism in which "the credible conjecture" > (A) is the minor premiss (Case), and "the surprising fact" (C) is the > conclusion (Result) that is "necessarily consequent upon" those two > premisses. > > Every inquiry whatsoever takes its rise in the observation, in one or > another of the three Universes, of some surprising phenomenon ... The > inquiry begins with pondering these phenomena in all their aspects, in the > search of some point of view whence the wonder shall be resolved. At > length a conjecture arises that furnishes a possible Explanation, by which > I mean a syllogism exhibiting the surprising fact as necessarily consequent > upon the circumstances of its occurrence together with the truth of the > credible conjecture, as premisses. > > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >
----------------------------- 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 .
