List, Clark: > On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just that I notice for many trying to get a grasp on Peirce the real/existent > distinction isn’t obvious because most philosophy is based upon nominalistic > assumptions. For nominalists of the realist variety (i.e. not idealists or > the empiricist variations of idealism) to exist is to be real and to be real > is to exist. Admittedly some like Quine are a little more sophisticated but > in the broader cultural context that’s the starting place.
In this paragraph, are you really intending to go into such deep deep water? <grin> ! A very thought provoking synthesis, to be sure. Some passing thoughts… Can you extend your categorization of “EXISTENCE” to the meanings of the sciences? Is this paragraph applicable to the "real/existent distinctions" among such logical terms as organic, organ, organism, and organization? Or, is it a profound philosophical attempt to explain metaphysics? 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 [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 .
