> On Jun 13, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected]> wrote: > > The recent mention by Clark of Parker’s book, “Continuity…” > re-opens the question of how Parker categorized CSP’s writings. > > Of particular interest is Parker’s division of the three periods of meanings: > Fig. 6.2: 1865-1885 > Fig. 6.3: 1885-1902 > Fig. 6.4: 1902-1914
I don’t have time to delve into all this as it’s honestly been a long time since I last read his book. So I’m going by distant memory here. While I loved the book, I remember my few qualms to be over how he mixed views from various periods of Peirce’s thought in key places. In particular in some places he makes use of the very early Peirce where his more neoplatonic tendencies are manifest in his reworking of Kant. However in other places he makes use of texts from later periods. However my memory just isn’t good enough to recall exactly where this was a problem. I also vaguely recall him agreeing to my critiques in a few points. But I’d not want to hang a criticism on such a distant memory. > How do Parker's separation of the forms of CSP logics relate to FS's views of > Natural Propositions? > > Can one find an illation between Parker’s reading of CSP and FS’s reading of > CSP’s propositional functions? I’d want to reread both before delving into that question. It’s a good one and hopefully someone else can chime in.
----------------------------- 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 .
